Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Nursery Education

Paddy Tipping: What percentage of children aged (a) three and (b) four years are receiving nursery education in (i) Nottinghamshire and (ii) England.

Margaret Hodge: All three and four-year-olds in England are entitled to a free nursery education. This Government have replaced the unfair postcode lottery, which existed under the previous Government, with a universal guarantee for every three and four-year-old in every part of England, giving every child the very best start in life. In January 2004, 93 per cent. of three-year-olds and virtually all four-year-olds benefited from free places.
	In Nottinghamshire local education authority area, 6,800 free places were taken up by three-year-olds, and a further 8,100 free places were taken up by four-year-olds.

Paddy Tipping: The record is excellent, and I congratulate both Nottinghamshire county council and the Government on that investment. We must invest even more in families and children. Does the Minister agree that we must examine flexible patterns of parental care and leave, the provision of nursery centres in every community and wrap-around care in schools to provide help in mornings, evenings and during holidays? That would be a real investment for hard-working families.

Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his question, the answer to which is contained in our 10-year strategy for early years education, child care and support for parents. That strategy will give parents the flexibility to balance their time between their responsibilities at work and their responsibilities to their children. It is about providing high quality care for all children and providing flexibility for parents, so that parents can put the interests of their children at the heart of everything they do. I look forward to being part of the Government who implement that strategy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we are going to have short questions and concise answers, which will help us to make progress through the Order Paper.

Student Visa Charges

Vincent Cable: What discussions she has had with Home Department Ministers about the impact on universities of higher student visa charges.

David Rendel: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department regarding visa charges for international students.

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had productive discussions with Home Office Ministers about leave to remain visa extension charges. Those discussions resulted in an agreement to set a discounted rate for students of £250 for postal applications, compared with the new £335 standard rate for everyone else.

Vincent Cable: If there was proper consultation, why was the Home Office not made aware of the Prime Minister's initiative to attract international students and of the passionate concern of university vice-chancellors, who have written to us about the damaging consequences of those charges? If a new Labour Government are elected, is it not inevitable that one of their first acts will be an increase in the limit on top-up fees in order to compensate universities for the loss of income from overseas students?

Kim Howells: No, that will not be the first act of a new Labour Government—I hope that the Liberal Democrats will be around to witness a new Labour Government. There has been a lot of talk from Tory Members, and a lot of talk of a different sort from Liberal Members, about this or that attitude to immigration. Some say that we must be tougher and some say that we must be more liberal, but none of them has got a clue how to enforce the rules on who comes in and who stays and how to discern between genuine students and those who are not.

David Rendel: Given that both Universities UK and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service report that applications from international students are well down this year, does the Minister recognise that his policy, which he has agreed with the Home Office, will have a significant effect on the financial health of our universities and on our place in the international market for education? His policy runs counter to his Department's previous comment that education in the UK has a crucial international dimension.

Kim Howells: I would be concerned, if I thought that the policy would have a significant effect. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to explain the effect of the existing charges on students. If he is saying that we should do away with the existing charges for leave to remain applications and for applications for visas to study in this country in the first place, then he should say it. The new charges have not come in yet.
	The fact that the number of applications has dropped is significant, but after 9/11 the Americans closed up shop on students going to study in the United States, and we were the major beneficiary of that decision. The world market is currently righting itself. I was lucky enough to go to China, where I met the Chinese Education Minister and Vice-Minister, who did not state that visa charges were significant.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not only of the fee but of having the right to appeal withdrawn? Sheffield university tells me that 90 per cent. of those who were initially refused on appeal were subsequently able to come to this country to study. The real problem of people coming here fraudulently as students is not in universities but in language schools and other colleges. My hon. Friend should consider that energetically, but he should not penalise the university sector, where overseas students do so much good for our country.

Kim Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. Short-term students coming to study for less than six months, or those who have not been accepted for a course of study, are already prevented from appealing on that basis. In discussions with the Home Office last year, we became aware that it was considering removing the right of appeal against visa refusals for some students—for instance, those who had applied to study at an institution that is not on the DFES register of learning providers.
	I take my hon. Friend's point, however. In further discussions with the sector, we shall try to ensure that such institutions are not penalised. I know that the most difficult issue arises when students come in for short courses and decide, because of the very high quality of the education that they receive, that they want to continue with a longer course.

Michael Fallon: What is the point of the Chancellor saying out in the far east that higher education is one of our great strengths, the Home Office driving up fees and driving students away from our universities, and Education Ministers just sitting there wondering what is going on? Why do they not join it all up?

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman will not know this, but I returned from China last night. Having spoken with the Chinese education Minister and Vice-Minister at great length about this, I am well aware of how the Chinese feel about it. We take 185,000 non-EU students a year from abroad. That figure is not plummeting and is a huge source of income generation. People come to this country because we offer the best higher education in the world and it is very good value for money. We will continue to do so in order to ensure that people are not put off from studying in this country.

Andy Reed: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the excellent work at Loughborough university, where the number of international students has increased in recent years. However, there is some concern about the charges. Has my hon. Friend assessed the overall cost to students of the charge of £250, or in some cases up to £500—not only to Chinese students but those from other, poorer, countries, particularly developing countries?

Kim Howells: Yes, I have some figures on the percentage increase in costs for a typical student of undertaking a year's study in the United Kingdom resulting from the new charges. In higher education, there will be 0.8 per cent. additional cost on a postal application and 2.1 per cent. if the student takes the premium service. It is a relatively small increase, although I am not trying to belittle it because it is nevertheless significant.

Charles Hendry: Has the Minister seen research by the University of Brighton showing that 88 per cent. of its students from abroad would not continue their courses if these increases in fees and visa charges went through? Does he accept the suggestion by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills that the increase is a consequence of the Government's failure to tackle illegal immigration through language schools and that, as a result, higher enforcement costs are being passed on to bona fide students? Will he agree to carry out a detailed assessment of the impact of the increases on British universities before taking further action?

Kim Howells: I do not accept that for one minute. Our aim must be to strike a balance between ensuring that we continue to enhance the United Kingdom's reputation as a world-class education provider to international students and generating sufficient income to enable us to operate the effective immigration control that helps to facilitate that. I know that the hon. Gentleman cares a great deal about higher and further education, but it does no good for him to make such criticisms based on grossly inflated figures. The idea that 80 per cent. of students will not come to this country because of a very small incremental increase is clearly absurd. Whoever carried out that research should go back to university to do a fundamental degree.

Sustainable Development Education

David Kidney: What support the Department gives to schools for the pursuit of sustainable development education.

Derek Twigg: Sustainable development runs through our key policies, for example promoting health, physical activity and well-being, encouraging pupil participation and volunteering, improving transport and estate management and the building schools for the future programme. It is also a statutory part of science, design and technology, geography and citizenship. We provide funding, information, resources and other support, including specifically for sustainable development aspects.

David Kidney: Is my hon. Friend aware of Staffordshire's great success in sustainable development education, as shown by the many schools that achieved the status of eco school? Will he confirm that it is the Government's ambition that every school in the country will be eco friendly? Will he assure hon. Members that the Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working hard to ensure that sustainable development is a substantial element in every child's learning experience?

Derek Twigg: I can confirm that DEFRA and the Department are working together and holding regular discussions. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in Staffordshire and his commitment to the issue. As he knows, all schools can register free with Eco Schools, which is one of several schemes that are available to schools. We want schools to assess what aspects of sustainability they wish to tackle, according to the circumstances and needs of pupils, parents and the local community. That is why a web-based service to offer schools a framework for making those choices and provide information on a wide range of schemes, awards, resources and support is available. It will be widely publicised to encourage schools to become more active on sustainable development and we have a five-year strategy for all schools to be environmentally sustainable.

Mark Prisk: Does sustainable development, as defined in the curriculum, include building on the green belt? If not, would the Under-Secretary like to invite the Deputy Prime Minister to attend one of his classes?

Derek Twigg: We are committed to much more building on brownfield sites. The building schools for the future programme is considering how the way in which schools are built can be environmentally sustainable. We have already done a pilot on that. However, it is worth reminding hon. Members that we are doing a great deal on sustainable development. We have put in place advice and a new global gateway for a website. As I said, building schools for the future is a big programme. We have also set up the healthy living briefing for schools and initiatives on school transport and school leadership. We are doing whatever we can to ensure the best sustainable development in education.

Vocational Education

Graham Allen: If she will make a statement on financial co-operation between local education authorities, the Learning and Skills Council and further education colleges in implementing in Nottingham the Government's 14 to19 strategy for vocational education.

Syd Rapson: What plans she has to increase the take-up of vocational training in schools and colleges.

Ruth Kelly: Yesterday, I placed before the House the Command Paper "14 to 19 Education and Skills". That should lead directly to an increase in the number of young people undertaking vocational education and training. To deliver the radical proposals in the White Paper, we expect local partners to co-operate in planning and funding to ensure breadth of provision and highest quality and value for money, without disrupting core funding systems or increasing bureaucracy. Nottingham provides an excellent model.

Graham Allen: Does the Secretary of State accept that my constituency will be the test of the White Paper on 14 to 19-year-olds because it sends the fewest youngsters to university and further education? Will she therefore ensure that the bureaucratic interlocking of the various organisations—the local education authority, the Learning and Skills Council and many others—which produces less progress than we would like, is tackled in the aftermath of the White Paper? Will she examine the good example of Sure Start, which my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards was instrumental in promoting? It had a dedicated capital fund, a dedicated revenue fund and everybody knew their exact responsibilities. That is the way to get more youngsters into FE.

Ruth Kelly: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in championing the needs of young people in his constituency. He has raised the matter with not only me but my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. He is right to draw attention to the need for the Learning and Skills Council and local authorities to work together to overcome any financial barriers to providing integrated education for 14 to 19-year-olds. One way of achieving that would be through a flexible funding pot for the Learning and Skills Council to facilitate collaboration. We shall revert to that proposal shortly and set out the details of how it might work.

Syd Rapson: I, too, welcome the White Paper, which was published this week, especially its promise of new vocational routes to success. I have spent a lifetime encouraging people into engineering. Will the Government give support specifically to women entering into engineering and following that vocational route to success? That would tap an untapped group of people who are central to the country's future.

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Yesterday, I met some young women and girls in the 14 to 19-year-old age group who were studying engineering. It is important that girls are given that opportunity. The Equal Opportunities Commission is currently considering gender segregation, and is due to report in March. I believe that one of the occupational sectors that it will consider is engineering. We will study its proposals carefully to see whether we can take them forward.

Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) raised a key issue about 14 to 19 development funding. Does the Secretary of State agree that without harmonisation of the funding units for the same delivery of a programme in a school and a college, we will not get the sort of co-operation that he wants? Does she also agree that unless we can bring together the pay rates and conditions of service for teachers and lecturers, again we will not be able to get that sort of co-operation? What plans does she have to deal with those two issues?

Ruth Kelly: Those are indeed important issues. I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have now committed themselves to parity between further education lecturers and teachers. We must overcome the barriers involved in delivering that. The real test is whether it can work in practice and whether it does work. The answer is that it does. In places such as Knowsley, local authorities and the Learning and Skills Council are working together to deliver really innovative programmes for young people, making a success and widening opportunities right across the board.

Nick Gibb: When the Education and Skills Committee took evidence on the Tomlinson review, we were told that vocational courses would just be a taster and would not involve genuine training in any particular skill. Will she reject that superficial approach and ensure that all vocational courses provide high-quality, useful training that leaves students with a genuine, marketable skill?

Ruth Kelly: I can make that commitment. It is very important that students are able to study in the ways that motivate them in the places that motivate them. For example, if a student is taking a catering course, it is not right that they just learn about applied catering theory; it is right that they learn how to cook in a kitchen, taught by a chef. That is exactly the sort of course that I would like to see offered and made available to all our students.

David Chaytor: Is there not a wider national issue relating to the role of the learning and skills councils? Is the Secretary of State absolutely confident that the strategic planning responsibilities that she has given to the learning and skills councils are always consistent with the prospect of 200 new academies and the autonomy that they have, the move to 3,000 foundation schools and the autonomy that they have, and the encouragement of all 11 to 16 schools to open new sixth forms?

Ruth Kelly: I am committed to collaborative working between different schools and FE colleges and indeed employers and the voluntary sector where that is necessary. I foresee the Learning and Skills Council and local authorities coming together to offer a joint prospectus of opportunities available to all our young people from the ages of 14 to 19, and that that will be backed up by coherent information, advice and guidance to make sure that students take the right courses and that their options are not narrowed down too quickly, so that they have the opportunity to switch course later as they mix the academic and the vocational. My hon. Friend is right that there are challenges and we will need extra money to oil the wheels of collaboration. I will set out in due course how we intend to develop that model.

Mark Hoban: Today's young people cannot wait for the full roll-out of the national diploma in a decade. We are committed to creating 300,000 vocational education places for today's 14 to 16-year-olds. What measures will the Government take to make sure that vocational education is a reality for today's 14 to 16-year-olds?

Ruth Kelly: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the policy of the Conservative party. Yesterday, that was strangely absent—there was not one mention from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) about its policy to cap the funding available for vocational courses for all our 14 to 19-year-olds. We intend to make provision available across the board. There will be no cap on opportunity and no cap on aspiration. Four of the specialised lines will be available by 2008 if not before. Some are already being developed and will be on-stream over the next year or so. Over the decade, we will raise the participation rate from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. to be one of the best in the industrialised world.

Truancy

Si�n Simon: What steps the Department is taking to tackle truancy.

David Amess: How much her Department has spent on anti-truancy initiatives since 1997; and if she will make a statement.

John Bercow: How much her Department has spent on anti-truancy initiatives since 1997; and if she will make a statement.

Stephen Twigg: Most funding for work on attendance is combined with funding for wider work on discipline, behaviour and exclusions. The Department has spent 11.5 million on measures dealing solely with attendance since 1997. Today we published new data on the maintained sector for the autumn term 2004, which show that overall absence in schools fell from 6.68 per cent. last year to 6.17 per cent. last term.

Si�n Simon: We have heard a lot of cheap opportunist point-scoring about truancy in recent weeks, yet all the anecdotal evidence from schools, the youth service and related agencies, and the police in my constituency shows that the worst culprits, and those causing the most trouble when not at school, are at school more than they used to be. Has the Department enough qualitative data not just on how many pupils are at school, but on who is and who is not at school, and on what pupils are doing when they are or are not at school?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is right to ask that. As I said, today we have published new data relating to last term. I have particular praise for schools in Birmingham, where there has been a significant fall in the number of absences. The figure is now 5.38 per cent., one of the lowest in the country for an urban area. That demonstrates the success of schools working together through the behaviour improvement programme, and the importance of not relying on statistics alone but ensuring that quality measures are in place.

David Amess: A lot of money has been spent on these initiatives, for example sending parents to prison if their children play truant or giving secondary schools disincentives to retain truanting children, but I am not at all sure how successful they have been. Must not the Government now accept that an all-out concerted effort is needed to recruit and retain, and to encourage the women and men with the necessary special skills to persuade these young people to reconnect to formal education?

Stephen Twigg: I agree. That is why we have invested in more than 10,000 learning mentors, why the programme that we set out yesterday is so important to engaging and re-engaging more young people, and why we have record numbers of teachers and classroom assistants.I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating Southend schools on a significant fall in truancy last term. The recent truancy sweeps in particular are having a real impact, which is showing in the figures.

John Bercow: Given that in 200304 no fewer than 1,264,103 primary and secondary school pupils played truant, that that represented a 25 per cent. increase on 1997 and that the Government missed both their important public service agreement targets for reducing truancy, does the Minister not understand the concern that the 300,000 a day that Ministers have spent since 1997 has not been well spent? Is he not particularly ashamed of the appalling record in Edmonton, north London, which is very close to his constituency?

Stephen Twigg: What is important is that we are now given the figures in a far fuller and more sophisticated form. The position varies from one area to another. What I have announced today, however, is a very significant improvement. If we compare like with like, we see that there were 87,000 more pupils at school each day in the 2004 autumn term than during the equivalent period when we came to power.
	I will happily work with the London borough of EnfieldConservative-ledand my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) to ensure that Edmonton is part of the wider national improvement that we are announcing today.

David Taylor: It is good news that 60,000 fewer pupils, on average, are absent from school each day, but 450,000 still are. Two per cent. of the school population are responsible for 50 per cent. of all truancies. Is not much of that linked to parental attitude? A particular problem is that the system of authorised absences has been rather over-relaxed over the years. It can slip-slide into unauthorised absences, with all the social and economic consequences about which we have been hearing. What is being done to tackle that?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The big fall in absences over the last two years has consisted mostly of authorised absences. Schools that were authorising absences are now rightly taking a much tougher stance. He is also right to remind us that the evidence shows that very few pupilsabout 2 per cent.are responsible for about half the truancy. Engaging parents is important, but so is engaging such young people in the curriculum and in school activities. Yesterday's announcement will contribute to that.

Adrian Bailey: To continue the theme but to draw a distinction, in my constituency parentally condoned truancy seems to be a bigger problem than parentally condoned authorised absences, because traditional truancy has been mitigated by good work between the local authority and the police. What steps can be taken to develop strategies to deter parentally condoned truancy?

Stephen Twigg: As my hon. Friend will know, we have taken a number of steps in the past few years. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) referred to the extreme step of parents being sent to prison, but we have introduced a number of other measures, such as fast-track prosecutions and fixed penalty notices. Birminghamjust down the road from my hon. Friend's constituencyhas been at the forefront in using fixed penalty notices. I am confident that in Birmingham, part of the reason for the significant improvement that I described earlier is the way in which schools and local authorities have engaged positively with parents in the process. However, authorities also have the sanction that ultimately, parents can be taken to court. That is working in Birmingham and in many other parts of the country as well.

Tim Collins: Why, after eight years of a Labour Government is unauthorised absencetruancysubstantially worse; or is the answer in the question?

Stephen Twigg: I[Interruption]I am being encouraged to refer to the hon. Gentleman's truancy on Sunday from Granada, but I think that he had a very good excuse for that.
	For many years pre-dating this Government, unauthorised absence stood at about 0.7 per cent., and it is acknowledged across the board that that is a very tough nut to crack. We want maximum attendance in schools and the hon. Gentleman must accept that we now have record levels of attendance. Indeed, today's new figures demonstrate that there was a substantial improvement in the last school term. That shows that the measures that we have taken are having an effect. Schools are not prepared to authorise absence that they might previously have authorised.

Tim Collins: But does the Minister not keep coming back to the same point? The Government have done the easy bit, which is to reduce authorised absence, but they have demonstrably failed to reduce unauthorised absence, which is truancy. They have spent 885 million and they have been criticised by the National Audit Office. Should they not address some of the underlying causes of this problem? Since 1997, violence in schools has increased and drug use has doubled. Would not clearer signals from the Government about pupil behaviour and drug use actually help, instead of just constant talk?

Stephen Twigg: We have sent clear signals. The 885 million to which the hon. Gentleman referred is to support discipline and promote good behaviour and attendance in schools. It includes the provision of 10,000 learning mentors, who are making a real difference in terms of school standards and raising educational achievement. There are 1,000 learning support centres in schools and double the number of places in pupil referral units. We have not had just talk; serious action has been taken.
	The James review says that the Conservatives would cut central support for dealing with behaviour issues and for special educational needs support from local education authorities, but schools need that back-up from LEAs in order to tackle behaviour. The Conservative proposals would make the situation worse.

GCSE Results (Lancashire)

Mark Hendrick: If she will make a statement on changes in GCSE results in Lancashire over the last four years.

Ivan Lewis: In 2004, 53.8 per cent. of pupils in Lancashire achieved five or more grades A* to C at GCSE and equivalent, compared with 47 per cent. in 1998. Over the last four years, Lancashire has performed above the national average in terms of those achieving five good grades, any passes and average point scores.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend has given us the figures for Lancashire and I want to quote the figures for Preston, Walton le Dale and Bamber Bridge. There has been a rise in the percentage of pupils achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A to Cfrom 33 per cent. in 1997 to 45 per cent. now. Will he join me in congratulating Walton le Dale high school and Christ the King high school in particular on being among the top 60 most improved schools in the country? Will he also comment on what effect yesterday's announcement on 14 to 19-year-olds might have on future GCSE results?

Ivan Lewis: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the schools in his constituency and, indeed, teachers and pupils throughout the country who have contributed to improvements in GCSE performance. It is sad that the Conservative party wants to undermine the achievements of our young people. I believe that yesterday's announcement will enhance GCSEs in several ways: toughening the focus on the basics, enhancing the vocational route and genuinely tackling disengagement and encouraging stretch. Additionally, we are expanding investment in early years through the children centre programme, Sure Start and the focus on literacy and numeracy in primary schools on a long-term generational basis. All that will ultimately ensure that improvements in GCSE performance continue to accelerate in the years ahead.

Patrick McLoughlin: If the GCSE examination is working so well, why did the Government announce changes yesterday?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question relates specifically to Lancashire. The Minister may reply.

Patrick McLoughlin: GCSEs in Lancashire, then.

Ivan Lewis: In Lancashire, the benefits of the reforms that we announced yesterday are very straightforward. Even when a system is moving in the right direction, a responsible Government should attempt to make even further improvements. What we announced yesterday on GCSEs was a radical step for a Government to takethe Conservatives did not do it when they were in governmentas we intend to toughen standards on the basics and make it more difficult to get five decent GCSEs. We are also going to incentivise students and schools to understand the priority that we place on English and maths as core skills that are essential both for the modern world of work and for becoming good citizens in that modern world. The reforms announced yesterday are about supporting individuals to fulfil their potential while setting the bar higher in respect of basic skills and academic standards. I am proud of the fact that the Government are prepared to do that.

Sexual Health Education

Hilton Dawson: What measures she has taken to improve the standard of sexual health education in schools.

Margaret Hodge: Our priority is to improve the quality of teaching and learning of sex and relationship education, including sexual health. We are supporting a programme of training for teachers and a similar programme for community nurses. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is developing materials and guidance to support better assessment of pupils, and the healthy living blueprint, sent to all schools last year, addresses a range of health issues, including sexual health.

Hilton Dawson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply and ask her to note that the question comes not from some out-of-touch old bloke on the Back Benches, but from an extremely bright young woman currently working in my officeMs Tiana Golden. She identified this as the priority issue out of the whole range of Department for Education and Skills questions that could be asked. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in all that the Government do, they are striving to maintain high standards across the board, across all schools and across all education establishments? Will she also confirm that this crucial work is being carried out firmly within the realm of relationships education and outside the science labs?

Margaret Hodge: First, I endorse the fact that this issue is important to young people. I had a meeting yesterday with a children and youth board that I regularly consult and the quality of sex and relationships education was raised as a key issue. I agree that relationships education, as well as biologically based sex education, is crucial, particularly if we are to reduce the currently high teenage pregnancy rates and improve sexual health among our youngsters.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that the Government have singularly failed to raise the standards of sexual health education because we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe? What are the Government doing to deal with that problem?

Margaret Hodge: No, I do not accept that we have failed. Indeed, the figures announced this morning show a trend of reduction in the number of young girls who become pregnant, and that is the right direction. We have seen a welcome cut in the number of teenage pregnancies. However, I am not complacent about that complex issue. We are doing what we can, but I would welcome any positive contribution that the hon. Lady has to make. Part of the answer is what happens in schools, part is the support that can be given by community nurses, but most important is the education and advice from parents about sex and relationships. When we talk to young people that becomes very clear, and we have to do what we can to support parents in giving better advice and support to their young people.

Jonathan R Shaw: Is it not the case that in the 1970s Britain had similar teenage pregnancy levels to the rest of Europe? In the 1980s, our level went up and up and elsewhere in Europe levels went down. The Conservatives completely ignored the issue and it was not until we had the social exclusion unit's report on the issue and the teenage pregnancy strategy that we started taking the issue seriously. Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps too much autonomy was granted with the strategy, so that some areas are doing very well and others, which have had the same resources, are not doing so well? What is she doing to encourage best practice so that we can continue to drive teenage pregnancy rates down and deliver on that important issue?

Margaret Hodge: I could not have put better the difference between the Government's approach and that of the Conservatives. It is a complex issue, but we now understand much better the correlation between, for example, truancy and teenage pregnancy rates. All the work that we are doing to raise aspirations and to cut unauthorised as well as authorised absence is important in tackling the wider issues. My hon. Friend is right to say that some areas are doing better than others. We are learning from that and we are now focusing much of our effort on what we call the hot spot areas50 per cent. of teenage pregnancies occur in 20 per cent. of wards. If we concentrate on those areas, and work with midwives and health visitors to address the fact that one in five teenage pregnancies are second pregnancies, I am sure that we will see greater success.

Apprenticeships

Anne Campbell: How many apprenticeships have been undertaken in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis: In 1997 there were 75,000 apprentices in training; 112,000 in 1998; 154,000 in 1999; 203,000 in 2000; 198,000 in 2001; 212,000 in 2002; 233,000 in 2003; and 245,000 in 2004. That represents a threefold increase since 1997 and demonstrates the Government's commitment to serious long-term investment in vocational education.

Anne Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is excellent news that more young people than ever are taking advantage of high quality apprenticeships, such as those offered by Marshall Aerospace of Cambridge in my constituency. However, one national problem is that many young people begin apprenticeships but do not complete them. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could describe what action is being taken to ensure that more young people complete their apprenticeships.

Ivan Lewis: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the organisation in her constituency. It is true that a number of issues arise from the apprenticeship programme. For example, non-completion is sometimes a consequence of a young person remaining in employment having been told by their employer that they do not need to continue training. We have several issues to address, one of which is ensuring that apprenticeships are fitter for purpose by involving employers in the design of the apprenticeships. We also need far more employer engagement in offering apprenticeships and vocational learning opportunities. If we are to create a high status route, as we described in the White Paper yesterday, it is important that we see progression from advanced apprenticeships into foundation degrees, or from level 3 specialist diplomasas they will be known in the futureinto higher education. The challenge must be to involve higher education in the design of advanced apprenticeships and level 3 specialist diplomas, and ensure that they are given the same esteem as so-called academic achievements.

Alistair Burt: Is not the real problem, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, the fact that too many people do not complete apprenticeships because the esteem given to manufacturing is still not strong enough in this country? The experience in my constituency is exactly the same as that of the hon. Lady. I was at an engineering firm recently where I was told that of the five people who had started apprenticeships, none had completed their term because, to schools, manufacturing industry still does not carry the same esteem as other routes into the future. The firm was concerned about the number of people being urged to go into higher education rather than apprenticeships. Should not the Minister tackle the lack of esteem in which manufacturing is held in order to get the answer to why people drop out of apprenticeships?

Ivan Lewis: It is a misnomer to talk about apprenticeships simply in the context of manufacturing industry; it is an outdated notion. About 112 sectors of the economy offer apprenticeships. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the announcement yesterday, he would have heard that central to it is getting young people from the ages of 11 and 14 to have far more contact with the labour market and the world of work, breaking down the dividing line between the labour market and the educational establishment and ensuring that the choices that young people make are based on an informed experience of the world of work. My challenge to manufacturing industry in the context of the sector skills councils is to go into schools and colleges and make the case for the modernity and relevance of such industry and for the earning potential of young people in it. As for the 50 per cent. higher education target, what Britain needs economically is more graduates and more apprentices and we should not seek to choose between the two.

Brian Jenkins: My hon. Friend will be fully aware, as we all are, of employers' concerns that we recruit not only craft apprentices but apprentices who will go on to university and gain higher qualifications. The Government are fully aware, and the White Paper shows it, that we need to give our youngsters the opportunity to experience what occupations industry can offer them. The White Paper is fine and the words are fine, but surely the Minister must realise that it takes more than wordsit takes personal commitment from the Government to take on the crusade: otherwise, it will founder.

Patrick McLoughlin: We will have to wait a long time then.

Ivan Lewis: Well, we waited 18 years under the Conservative Government, when we had a decimated vocational education system. The reality is that from September work-related learning will be a statutory part of the curriculum. From next September enterprise education will become part of the curriculum. That is for all young people, not just young people pursuing vocational routes. As a consequence of the reforms that we announced yesterday, there will be a far more dynamic relationship between education providers and employers in every community in every part of the country.
	This is a challenge not just to the Government and educationistsyesterday, we delivered to employers a commitment to focus on the basics. Their responsibility is to come to the table now to enable us to deliver a high quality, high status vocational education system. Government alone will not be able to achieve it; we need a partnership between Government and employers.

Tomlinson Report

Richard Ottaway: When the Government will publish its response to the Tomlinson report.

Ruth Kelly: I did, yesterday.

Richard Ottaway: I thank the Secretary of State. Does she accept that we can all argue for a long time about those bits of Tomlinson that we like and do not like? I welcome the retention of A-levels, but does she accept that the retention of AS-levels is not so popular? Will she acknowledge that taking three serious sets of examinations in three consecutive years hampers the broadening of the mind and the development of the character of young people in their late teens? Even at this late stage, will she rethink her position on that particular exam?

Ruth Kelly: I will not because, under the new system, I see people taking exams at the age and pace that suits them so that we get away from the idea that 16 is a fixed point in the education system, that at 17 one takes AS-levels, or that at 18 one has to take A-levels. We will move toward a system in which students take GCSEs when it suits them and perhaps take an AS-level at 16. We have to try to broaden the range of opportunities available to all our young people to offer a mix of the academic and the vocational and to give the vocational route much higher esteem. That all fits together as a coherent picture.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is some concern about the decision to retain A-levels, but does she accept that AS-levels are popular in certain respects, especially for youngsters from non-traditional backgrounds who perhaps do not have the academic background that some of us have had? It is a great advance to have an examination in the first year of sixth-form study to get used to the style and content of A-levels. It is beneficial to students of that type.

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is quite possible that, in the future, in the different specialised lines of learning such as engineering, employers and higher education institutions might ask for an AS levelin physics, for exampleas part of a vocational course. It is quite important that students have the opportunity to mix the academic and the vocational, so that we get away from the idea that pupils are pigeonholed into one category or the other and let all our pupils have the opportunity to combine studies in both areas.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked

Burden of Proof

Anne McIntosh: What legislative provisions introduced since 1997 have entailed a reversal in the burden of proof; and what guidance she has provided to the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to these provisions.

Harriet Harman: I will write to the hon. Lady with a list of the issues that have been considered by the CPS reversed burdens sub-committee. I think that that is the most helpful way I can answer her question. The CPS issues guidance to all prosecutors on new legislation and on significant court decisions that clarify the law.

Anne McIntosh: This is the second opportunity that I have had to put this question. I did so once in writing to the Solicitor-General, which was due to be answered on Monday, and the right hon. and learned Lady said that she would write to me. I find that unacceptable, given that on Monday we debated the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, whereby the incidence and the level of fines for the issuing of fixed penalty notices has increased and there is a reversed burden of proof at the time that the fixed penalty notice is issued. Does the right hon. and learned Lady not see that as a result of increasing the reversed burden of proof at that stage, the only defence for those who do not wish to pay such a fine is to go to court, so that will throw a load of cases in the direction of the court? Does she find that acceptable?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady will agree that what is in the substantive law is a matter for the House. All these issues are canvassed on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and if a reversed burden of proof is introduced in any legislation, customarily people do look more closely at it. When it comes to prosecution, cases will be prosecuted in the normal way following the legislation and following any guidance.

John Burnett: rose

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not giving the hon. Lady a second supplementary question.

Anne McIntosh: Owing to the totally unsatisfactory answer I have received from the Solicitor-General, I wish to apply for an Adjournment debate on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point is noted.

John Burnett: Can the Solicitor-General confirm that

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am advised that, as a result of that point of order, we now have to move on to the next question.

Victims Charter

Harry Barnes: If she will introduce proposals to extend the provisions of the victims charter to Government Departments and agencies which can instigate criminal actions on behalf of complainants.

Harriet Harman: A draft of the victims code will shortly be the subject of a public consultation exercise. As with the charter, it is proposed that the code applies to named criminal justice agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government do not propose at this stage to extend the code to cover other prosecuting authorities.

Harry Barnes: Is it not the case that under the victims charter, a victim of crime can obtain an explanation from the police or the Crown Prosecution Service if charges relating to the crime they have suffered from are being reduced, dropped or just not proceeded with? I have been pursuing a case for six years with the Department of Trade and Industry, where it has powers to prosecute under the Fair Trading Act 1973. Why are not the DTI, other Government Departments and agencies covered by the victims charter, so that my constituent can be given the explanation that he seeks as to why the action he and I feel should have been taken by the DTI has not been taken?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He has identified, of course, that these prosecutions come under the responsibility of the DTI, which is not covered formally by the victims' code, but I think it is good practice for all prosecutors to look at how they inform victims of things that are important to them. Perhaps I can undertake to get the Whitehall prosecutors' group, which includes all the prosecutors in Whitehall, including the DTI, to look at whether they could adopt good practice when prosecutions are of particular importance to individual victims.

John Burnett: Has guidance yet been given to the Crown Prosecution Service on the ability of victims and prosecution witnesses to have direct access to the CPS? If that guidance has yet to be given, will she tell us when that will happen?

Harriet Harman: The first stage of closer involvement between the Crown Prosecution Service and victims came with the roll-out of victim information. Not so long ago, victims would often find out that charges in their cases had been dropped. Nobody would be told about itthey would read about it in the newspaper. Now, new procedures have come into effect in all areas so that if there is a material changeif a charge is dropped or reducedthe CPS has a responsibility to inform that victim directly. However, there are many other issues that victims want to know aboutfor example, the progress in the caseso more information is being given, in co-ordination with the police, in witness care units. I hope that the information that I have given is as helpful as it possibly could be. I had no intention of doing anything other than answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend review the way that victims are treated in circumstances in which it is impossible to bring a prosecution because of the lack of absolute proof? I am thinking in particular of circumstances in which an elderly, vulnerable witness has been conned out of money by builders and so on, and people who have sought to befriend them.

Harriet Harman: It is important that victims get support even if there is no prosecution. Victim Support gives very useful support to victims, irrespective of whether anybody has been caught and charged with the crime. Also, victims can get criminal injuries compensation even if the offender has not actually been caught.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General will be aware that in some categories of offencesparticularly those under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974it is possible for prosecutions to be brought either by the Health and Safety Executive or by local authorities, and now by the Crown Prosecution Service as well. How does that impact on the operation of the victims charter? It is my understanding that some of those bodies will not be covered by the charter, but, in many cases, there are likely to be victims. What co-ordination or discussion has taken place to ensure, particularly if cases start with one body and are transferred to another, that victims' views are properly represented?

Harriet Harman: What we are looking for is a culture change whereby all prosecutors think carefully about the information and support that is given to victims throughout the case and how they are treated. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify that prosecutions can move from one prosecutor to another. They may start with one prosecutor who is not covered by the code and then move to a prosecutor who is covered by the code, or vice versa. The answer is to ensure that the Whitehall prosecutors' group discusses all those issues and that we level all practice up to the best, but we must start with the code that is under the statute having a clear focus. We must move it forward on that basis and then, in future, we might well be able to extend it.

Domestic Violence

Barbara Follett: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of anger management courses in the prevention of reoffending in domestic violence cases.

Harriet Harman: It is important to understand which programmes are effective in changing the behaviour of perpetrators of domestic violence, and it important that such programmes are monitored and evaluated. My own view is that one of the most important ways to change the behaviour of domestic violence perpetrators is for them to understand that they will not get away with beating their wives, that excuses will not be accepted and that they will be prosecuted and punished.

Barbara Follett: Although I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend's conclusion on that matter, if we are serious about reducing reoffending in domestic violence, we must combine anger management courses with some therapeutic work on the sources of that anger and perhaps work on dispelling it. Will she do all she can to ensure that where there is a high incidence of domestic violence, authorities get the funding they need to put on such courses?

Harriet Harman: I commend the probation service on its work with perpetrators in general and with perpetrators of domestic violence in particular. It is important to tackle repeat offending and to reduce offending. However, as well as working closely on the issue of perpetrators and reoffending, it is important that we do not assume that domestic violence is perpetrated by people who are victims of their own anger and who cannot control themselves. They often can control their anger at work, with friends, in the pub and with someone who is 6 ft 6 in, but they somehow cannot control their anger when they are behind closed doors with a wife who is only 5 ft 2 in. I am sceptical about some of the philosophies behind anger management, but I know that the work of the probation service, with which my hon. Friend has worked closely in Stevenage, is good.

John Bercow: There can be no excuse for the commission of domestic violence, and I am always interested in the views of the right hon. and learned Lady, but what does the empirical evidence show about the effectiveness or otherwise of such courses?

Harriet Harman: There are a number of different programmes in a number of different areas. They are all being monitored and evaluated, and the hon. Gentleman can see the result of the empirical research. The absolute bottom line, however, is the reoffending rate. There is good evidence that a high level of intervention with perpetrators cuts the reoffending rate, mostly because it gets them to accept responsibility for their actions and stops them giving the excuse, I got angry and I lost it.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 28 FebruaryCommittee and remaining stages of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
	Tuesday 1 MarchConclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 2 MarchOpposition day [5th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 3 MarchRemaining stages of the Consumer Credit Bill.
	Friday 4 MarchPrivate Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 7 MarchProceedings on the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Bill, followed by a motion to take note of various European documents relating to future European Union finances.
	Hon. Members may like to be reminded that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the Budget statement will be on Wednesday 16 March.

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House give us information about the arrangements for tabling manuscript amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and his understanding of the current position? Has he given further thought to providing a full Committee stage for the European Union Bill? As there is not to be the usual St. David's day debate next Tuesday on Welsh affairs, what assurance can he give the House that we will have an opportunity to have that debate soon?
	Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any news about the debate that I have been seeking on foreign affairs, so we can discuss Africa and the middle east? Important questions have also been raised about the Attorney-General's advice prior to the war. Such a debate would provide an opportunity for clarification.
	The date for the Budget was announced this week. Over recent years, there has been no consistency in the amount of notice given for the announcement of that date. This year, three weeks' notice was given. In some years, it has been seven weeks, and in other years, two weeks. Has not the time come for a standard notice period of perhaps one month? The Budget is an important date. Surely the time has come for a little modernisation, perhaps even a tidying-up exercise.
	There is widespread concern about the way in which business is being pushed through. This week, the timetabling of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill and the Drugs Bill was subject to considerable complaint by Members on both sides of the House, and the Prevention of Terrorism Bill has not been given adequate time next week. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman must be getting desperate, because he has so many Bills to deal with and so little time, but surely he should still try to allow the House to do its job properly. That is particularly important for the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. He must share the concern that draconian powers, of the sort that he used to oppose, are being slammed through. Why will he not stand up to fellow Ministers on behalf of the House and give us extra time?
	May we also have a statement about the Food Standards Agency's handling of the Sudan 1 chilli powder contamination? It seems to have been very slow. Is it not time to tell the agency to concentrate on its core activity and do it properly? Should not the Government look again at all the various agencies and trusts involved in food safety?
	Finally, may we have a statement from a Transport Minister about the effect of the snow on our roads and train services? It is pathetic that we are being told yet again that the snow was just too heavy or was the wrong sort.

Peter Hain: I am afraid Tory snow is just the same as Labour snow. It mucks the system up. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the helpful interventions from my colleagues. On reflection, snow under Labour is definitely better.
	On the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point about manuscript amendments. Ultimately it is a matter for the Speaker. I am, however, happy to say that we intend to provide extra time at the end of the debate so that there is a longer time to debate any amendments on Monday, especially if there is a Government amendment.
	In respect of the hon. Gentleman's charge about draconian powers, we have been over this ground before and the Home Secretary has addressed it fully on a number of occasions. The security services and the police have stated clearly that they need something in between locking people up in the normal way following the normal prosecution procedures, and mere surveillance. It is our duty as a Government to act on that. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they have not disputed that principle. Their main challenge has been about the precise way that it is done, and when the judiciary comes into the picture or whether the Home Secretary is in the lead. There is a balance to be struck as to whether we can act sufficiently speedily and where the courts come into the picture. We are seeking to address that, and the Home Secretary is considering it.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government introduced a human rights Act. The Law Lords' judgment would not have been possible without the Human Rights Act 1998 being prayed in aid. In addition, it is important that Conservatives remind themselves that article 1 of the European convention on human rights is the right to life. When we balance rights such as civil liberties with the right to life, we need to make sure that, in an age of suicide terrorism, we get that balance right and that as a Government we do not ignore our responsibilities to maintain security.
	On the European Union Bill, of course there will be a full Committee stage in due course. On the Welsh affairs debate, because of progress on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill we were not able to schedule, as we originally planned, a Welsh affairs debate on St. David's day, so it will have to come later as it often has done in the past. But there will certainly be a Welsh affairs debate.
	I have continued to bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request for a foreign affairs discussion. There is a great deal of legislation going through at present, as he knows. The Commission for Africa report is imminent and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have led the international agenda for assistance to Africa. The Prime Minister has been the pre-eminent world leader pressing for resolution of the middle east conflict. The progress now in prospect on the middle east would not necessarily have occurred without his leadership.
	On the Attorney-General's advice on the war, that is old ground. The Attorney-General has issued a statement denying any of the allegations made in the media. His advice was his and his alone, and he was not leant on by anybody.
	The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point about the consistency of notice for the Budget. Let there be no misunderstanding about this: Chancellors are a bit of a law unto themselves in whatever Government they serve. The timing of the Budget is a matter for the Chancellor because economic issues are extremely sensitive and important. However, I shall bear in mind the important issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.
	On the Sudan 1 problem, the Food Standards Agency acted very vigorously and immediately in order to advise and publicise the problem as soon as it had practical advice to give customers. After all, it was a Labour Government who set up the Food Standards Agency and gave it the powers to act as it has done. It will continue to advise customers that, although there is no risk of immediate illness, it is important that any of the affected products at home are withdrawn and that they are not used. All in all, we are seeing the Food Standards Agency acting exactly as we wanted and set it up to do.

Paul Tyler: Has the Leader of the House noted that last night, very unusually, a substantial number of his colleagues voted against the programme motion? They obviously shared the misgivings of everybody else in the House about the way in which the house arrest Bill is being pushed through all its remaining stages on Monday. In view of that, does he not recognise that one particular problem about having one day for remaining stages is that there is not proper time to consider amendments? If, as he hinted just now, there is going to be a substantial Government amendment, or perhaps several, can we have an assurance that it will be published before the weekend, so that we do not see, as has happened very often in the past, the Home Office producing last-minute, ill-thought-out concessions to buy off its own rebels on the Back Benches? Can we ensure that the amendments are given proper consideration before Monday?
	Can we have a statement from the Chancellor on the ongoing problems surrounding tax credit overpayments? Every Member in the House will have heard about the experience of constituents who have been asked to pay back to the Government sums that the Inland Revenue considers it unreasonable for them not to have known that they were paid unduly. Given that the formula on tax credits is now so complex that the computer charged with the job has to think overnighthuman beings cannot do it; the computer has to think over a 24-hour periodand that the Revenue has now had to publish a special booklet of guidance, can we have a statement from the Chancellor to explain what it is reasonable for the public to know or not know, what target the Revenue has to clear the backlog of disputed overpayments, when exactly it will introduce the new clearer award notice and when it will overhaul the IT system to deal with the situation?
	Finally, what steps is the Leader of the House taking to meet the strictures that Mr. Speaker has given on several occasions on timely and accurate answers to parliamentary questions? Is he aware that the Home Secretary is having major problems answering any questions at all? For example, I asked the Home Secretary on 20 December last year how much his Department was making out of 0870 so-called national rate telephone numbershe has no fewer than 19 different lines charging the public. Despite my prompting him with another question for a named day two weeks ago, I have still not heard anything. What has he got to hide?

Peter Hain: I am sure that there is no intention on behalf of the Home Secretary or any Minister to hide anything, but I shall certainly draw the matter to his attention, because the hon. Gentleman has a right to know the answer to the points that he has made. The hon. Gentleman will also know that I wrote to all Government colleagues last year to address the issue of delayed answers to questions and said that it was not a practice that should be encouraged; on the contrary, it should be stopped and answers given as soon as possible.
	I shall certainly draw the Chancellor's attention to the hon. Gentleman's point about tax credits, which is important.
	On the programme motion and its timing, we have been over this matter before. I have just said that we will be allowing extra time on Monday. I did not say that there would be a Government amendment. I said that, if there was a Government amendment, it would be easier to handle that, but I guess that other amendments will have been tabled for Monday, and if they are selected by Mr. Speaker, they can be considered. Let us look at the time that Parliament as a whole, both the Lords and Commons, are devoting to the measure. It is an emergency Bill. We have to bring it in and get Royal Assent before 14 March. [Interruption.] We do have to do it, because the present orders, which have been ruled illegal by the Law Lords, have to be replaced. That particular section has to be replaced, so we do need to do it quickly. I think that there is an understanding of that. Between the Commons and the Lords, there will be six days on the Floors of both Houses. In addition, I guess, if any amendments come back from the Lords, the House of Commons will have further time to consider them. In all, I think that hon. Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise and deal with all issues that they want to.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to bear it in mind that there is strictly timetabled business before the House today, so hon. Members will have to ask short, concise questions if I am to have any chance of calling them all.

Tam Dalyell: How about a ministerial statement next week on the obligations of senior Ministers to the House of Commons? Acquit me of personal chagrin, but I did not want to speak yesterday. However, the truth was that many important speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House were heard by a Minister of State and a junior Whip. When I first came here, Leaders of the HouseR.A. Butler and then Herbert Bowdenwould certainly have been present for such a debate so that they could report the atmosphere of the House back to the Cabinet. Frankly, that is the Leader of the House's job. Will he consider his obligations to report to the Cabinet about situations such as that in the House yesterday? It is a dereliction of duty for the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip not to be present in such circumstances.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but he will understand that I have a range of duties to do with this job. However, the debate was important and I shall certainly bear in mind the point he makes.

John Hayes: Governments are judged by both what they do and how they do it. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on how the Government are managing business? My hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has made it clear that we have had inadequate time to scrutinise important legislation, such as the Drugs Bill, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill and, most especially, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It really is not acceptable that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not have adequate time to hold the Government to account and scrutinise such legislation. Will the Leader of the House personally make a statement to reassure us all that we will have adequate time to examine such matters, rather than having legislation rushed through the House in this most undignified way?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman asks how business is being managed and I would say that it is being managed well. We are making progress with Bills, and if he looks at the record rather than rhetoric, he will find that scrutiny is better under the procedures that we have adopted because there is less scope for filibustering. We have been over this argument before: timetabling allows clauses to be examined carefully so that Bills are properly scrutinised.

Phil Woolas: Would the hon. Gentleman abolish it?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House asks whether the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) would abolish timetabling. If the Conservatives got into power, it would be interesting to find out whether they would abolish timetabling.

Eric Forth: Yes.

Peter Hain: I do not think that the former shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), would have the job, but if the current shadow Leader of the House was standing on this side of the Chamber, I am sure that he would not abolish timetabling because it is sensible, it allows the House to scrutinise legislation properly, and it allows interested parties outside the House to know when things will be happening in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It thus makes for better scrutiny and public understanding all round.

Julia Drown: May we have a debate on local government so that I can raise my constituents' concerns about Swindon borough council's Conservative budget? This week, the council put through 10 million of cuts, which included breaking a pledge to the voluntary sector by taking 250,000 from it? It has also raised day care charges from 65p to a massive 10 a day. Should we not have a debate to show that when the Tories talk about running services efficiently, in fact they make cuts to services on which we all rely?

Peter Hain: That is a horrifying story from Swindon showing what happens when the Conservatives get into power. It shows what happens locally and what would happen if they got into power nationally, with their programme of 35 billion cuts that would result in the massacring of services throughout the country, including those in Swindon, and, additionally, sky-high council tax bills after they had cut local government budgets.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I should remind the House about Mr. Speaker's recent strictures about propaganda in questions. May I also appeal once again for brevity?

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House make an urgent statement about the obvious dispute between him and the Prime Minister? When he referred to the powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, he said:
	It is not possible simply to renew them.[Official Report, 21 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 22.]
	At PMPs yesterday

Julian Lewis: PMPs?

Eric Forth: Prime Minister's porkies. When the Prime Minister discussed the same matter, however, he said:
	Of course it is true that we could extend the existing powers.[Official Report, 23 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 300.]
	The Leader of the House says that we cannot extend the powers and the Prime Minister says that we can, which means a clear rift in the Cabinet and a serious split in the Government.

Peter Hain: We miss the right hon. Gentleman as shadow Leader of the House, although his replacement is a decent man. There is no difference between me and the Prime Minister. The Law Lords ruled that a particular section of the 2001 Act is unlawful, and we therefore had to introduce new legislation to make sure that we can deal with the threat of terrorism. The Prime Minister and I are both right.

Gordon Prentice: There is huge confusion and anxiety that the Prince of Wales's forthcoming marriage in a civil ceremony may not be legal. Are the Government minded to introduce a short Bill to put the legality of the marriage beyond doubt?

Peter Hain: A written ministerial statement about that matter has been published today, and the Lord Chancellor made a statement yesterday that sets out the position clearly.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Leader of the House provide for an early debate on the Government's policy on arms sales, given that the Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that he would sanction arms sales to China? The Government used to be against arms sales to countries with bad human rights records, to countries that threaten their neighbours in the way in which China is threatening Taiwan and to countries that proliferate weapons of mass destructionChina used to supply Iraq with such weapons and is supplying North Korea now. Is that not an extraordinary volte-face?

Peter Hain: No, I do not think that it is. Shortly after the Labour Government came into office, we introduced a code that includes strict controls, which are now applied on a European Union-wide basis as a result of the proposals that we put to our colleagues in the EU. We support the EU policy, which does not permit the use of exports for either external aggression or internal repression. We think that the code is right at both the British level and the EU level.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend made an important and welcome statement to the Liaison Committee last October, when he said that henceforth there would be a presumption that special advisers would be able to give evidence to Select Committees. Will he confirm that that presumption also applies to the Prime Minister's special advisers?

Peter Hain: I had a detailed discussion with the Liaison Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, and set out my response to that matter, in which I used the word presumption. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for its comments on the revision of the Osmotherly rules, which apply to my hon. Friend's question.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and I were present throughout yesterday's Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. At the end of the debate, we were both allowed two minutes in which to make speeches. Today, the Leader of the House has told us that the House of Lords will get four days to discuss the Bill, while we are only allowed two days. We have got the democratic mandate; surely we should be allowed to have our say.

Peter Hain: As I have said before, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, of which the Prevention of Terrorism Bill affects only one section, was given three days in the House, and the Bill has been given two days. Further time in which to examine the Bill will be available after it returns from the House of Lords, if there are Lords amendments for the Commons to consider. [Interruption.] The process is not an invitation to the Lords to do anything. I am simply saying that more time will be provided on the Floor of the House, if it is needed. When I was a Back Bencher, I was not always called and sometimes could only speak for a short time. When lots of hon. Members want to speak, one cannot always get in.

Julie Morgan: I welcome the announcement of the Welsh day debate, although it will not take place on 1 March. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether we will have an equality debate, which normally takes place close to international women's day on 8 March?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is right that we normally hold such a debate, but I cannot promise that it will happen given the pressure on legislative time and other demands. There is a lot of legislation to get through, so it may well be that that debate does not take place this year.

Richard Shepherd: It is down to the Government that there is a lot of legislation to get through. Last week, the Leader of the House said that the Identity Cards Bill had been discussed satisfactorily, and yesterday's debate raised profound issues in relation to our freedoms. Contrary to the evidence of the Modernisation Committee, which he chairs, contemporary legislation is not subject to adequate scrutiny, which is a point made in the annexe to a report to which he was a signatory. Can we have a proper debate, which I also asked for last week, on how we manage the business of legislation going through this House?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman and I have an honest difference of opinion.

Richard Shepherd: The facts are in the report.

Peter Hain: No, the facts are on my side, and it is a question of interpretation. The hon. Gentleman sees filibustering as parliamentary scrutiny; I see timetabling as providing for proper parliamentary scrutiny, for better handling of Bills and for the House doing its job much more effectively. The Identity Cards Bill, the Drugs Bill, counter-terrorism legislation, the Charities Bill and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, which addresses antisocial behaviour in local communities, are the Bills that our constituentsand, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman's constituentsfeel that we should take through the Commons in their interests, which is what the Government are doing.

Keith Vaz: May we have a debate on the erection of mobile phone masts outside schools, which are causing a great deal of worry to my constituents in Leicester? All parties in Leicester oppose Vodafone's latest proposal, which is to establish a mobile phone mast outside St. Joseph's church at the junction of Uppingham road and Goodwood road.

Peter Hain: The matter is serious, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it on behalf of his constituents. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Deputy Prime Minister will pay close attention.

Nigel Dodds: In light of recent security warnings to leading public figures and recent IRA activity, may we have a guarantee from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that, no matter what agreements were made under the joint declaration about the running down of security and security installations in Northern Ireland such as Girdwood barracks in my constituency, a thorough review will be undertaken and that no further measures will be taken under that joint declaration, which is to the detriment of the security of my constituents and the people of Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not want to do anything that would jeopardise the security of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others in Northern Ireland. The maintenance of security is the top agenda item, along with trying to get the peace process back on the road.

Michael Foster: Given the current food scare concerning the Sudan 1 dye, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read early-day motion 741?
	[That this House notes that the original Lea and Perrins Worcestershire sauce is not implicated by the current Sudan 1 dye food scare; urges honourable Members to continue to use the original Lea and Perrins sauce, which is only linked by name to the product involved in the food scare; and calls upon the Food Standards Agency clearly to state that Lea and Perrins (based in Worcester since 1837) use only the highest quality and certified safe ingredients in its sauce.]
	It distinguishes between the original Lea and Perrins Worcestershire sauce, which is the product that consumers are most likely to see on the shelves in the shops, and the other brand, which is subject to the food scare. Given the food scare, will my right hon. Friend consider a future debate on food labelling?

Peter Hain: Lea and Perrins Worcestershire sauce is wonderful, and it is not contaminated by that dye. I support my hon. Friend in encouraging everybody to buy Lea and Perrins Worcestershire sauce, which is made in his constituency, in the knowledge that it is perfectly safe and incredibly wholesome.

Julian Lewis: May we have a debate on the decision by the Senior Salaries Review Body that even the Chief of the Defence Staff should be paid according to productivity and results? That would enable us to consider whether that principle should be applied to Ministers, particularly to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who spends most of his time on duties that are, shall we say, not unconnected with the election campaign.

Peter Hain: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his question in again.

Parmjit Dhanda: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on railway infrastructure projects such as railway subways, which affect thousands of pedestrians in my constituency, where a 400,000 scheme is coming to a halt because of a bitter dispute between the county council and Network Rail? Will he join me in welcoming moves this morning by Network Rail to write off its legal costs, and in encouraging all sides in such battles to work togetherin this case with me, at a meeting that I will host on 10 March?

Peter Hain: I very much hope that the county council and Network Rail will work closely with my hon. Friend and listen to his representation of his constituents' interests. They should get their act together and follow his advice.

Nigel Evans: The Department of Health announced today that there have been 5,016 cases of HIV. Given the habitual late reporting of that condition, the figure could easily be more than 7,000. In view of the new strain that has developed in New York, which is completely resistant to treatment, never mind cure, may we have an urgent debate to consider the Government's policy towards HIV and the possibility of an effective advertising campaign to warn people of the dangers of contracting it?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important and serious issue. The Secretary of State for Health will want to take careful note of his remarks, and I will ensure that he is aware of them.

Ian Davidson: Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the disgraceful Government announcement that they intend to abuse 8 MayVE dayby using it to launch their campaign on the European constitution? Does he accept that using the second world war in that way is an example of looking backwards, not forwardsand may I suggest to him that if Ministers are thinking of dressing up in uniform at such an event, they should remember what happened to Prince Harry?

Peter Hain: Despite the fact that we take a completely different view of the future of Europemy hon. Friend wants to get on a train out of Europe and we want to be right at the heart of Europe

Ian Davidson: Not true. That is a lie.

Peter Hain: Let me say this to my hon. Friend: of course there has been no attempt by the Government or by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to, as it were, abuse VE day. The point that my right hon. Friend was making, and is entitled to make, was that as a result of the European Union's existence and our membership of it, it is now inconceivable that a continent in which more wars were fought over the centuries than in any other part of the world could see such conflicts between the nations that are its constituent members ever happening again. That is a fantastic tribute to Europe's success, and the constitutional treaty will help to continue that success by creating a much safer and more secure Europe, and therefore a much safer and more secure world.

Michael Weir: The Leader of the House will be aware that this week Postcomm announced that the postal service will be opened up to full competition almost 18 months ahead of schedule, and that the Post Office's response to that was to call for more cost-reflective pricing to be available to it. That has caused a great deal of worry, especially in rural areas, about the future of our postal services. Can we have an urgent debate on the matter?

Peter Hain: Guarantees have been put in place to ensure that rural services are protected, and that will be uppermost in the minds of the Government and the postal regulator in taking the agenda forward. The Royal Mail is the jewel in the crown of the postal service, and that will continue to be the case under this increasing competition.

Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on early-day motion 750?
	[That this House hails the success of the ban of hunting with dogs; welcomes the demonstration by 184 hunts that the ban does not destroy jobs or traditional pageantry nor result in the destruction of horses or hounds; notes that the only loss is the gratuitous cruelty of the protracted chase of a small mammal bred for that purpose; congratulates the vigilance of the police in arresting a group of alleged hare coursers; and urges farmers and landowners to disregard the request by Master of Foxhounds Association to counter the current shortage of foxes by breeding more animals for hunting.]
	Such a debate would enable us to congratulate and thank the 184 hunts that last weekend demonstrated the great success of the ban on hunting by proving that there need be no loss of jobs or traditional pageantry, nor any hounds or horses destroyed, and that all that is being lost is the cruelty of a protracted chase. Can we look forward to the electors deciding that that cruelty will never return?

Peter Hain: I completely endorse my hon. Friend's point. I think that the electorate will want to maintain a ban on cruelty to animals and will not want to vote Conservative for the Hunting Act to be overturned and cruelty to animals to become widespread again.

William Cash: The Leader of the House said that that question of the Attorney-General's advice regarding the war was old hat. He may recall that on 17 March 2003the date of the warI received a written answer from the Solicitor-General pursuant to a question regarding the legal basis of the war that I, as shadow Attorney-General, had asked the Prime Minister on 11 March. I therefore read with considerable concern the report in today's edition of The Guardian suggesting that the Attorney-General, in evidence to the Butler inquiry relating to a meeting that took place in Downing street on 13 March, stated:
	they shortly, of course, set out my view
	in a parliamentary answerthey apparently being the people whom he met, Baroness Morgan and the present Lord Chancellor. In those circumstances, and in view of the written answer that I received from the Solicitor-General on behalf of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, may we have a debate and/or a statement on this matter to clear up how that advice came to be put together, by whom and whenand should not the full advice be made available to the people of this country?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not practice, nor is it sensible, for advice that the Attorney-General gives to other Ministers to be made public. However, for his benefit and for the benefit of the House, I repeat what the Attorney-General has just said in a press statement:
	In my Parliamentary answer on the 17 March 2003, I explained my genuinely held independent view, that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions. It was certainly not a view that I expressed as a result of being leant on in any way, nor as I have already made clear, was it written by or at Number 10.

Gwyn Prosser: I can understand why the Leader of the House did not find time last week to have a debate on the closure of the jobcentre in Deal in my constituency. However, he may not know that neither the staff affected by that closure, nor the Public and Commercial Services Union representatives who represent the people who might be made redundant, have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with management or to be consulted at all, although the consultation period was due to end yesterday. Does he agree that that action by management is completely unacceptable and smacks of arrogant disregard?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend will have a chance to raise that matter during Work and Pensions questions on Monday, but the account that he gives is very surprising, and it is not acceptable for management to behave in that way.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on Monday, before we return to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, on the comparison between that measure and the laws that were in place in South Africa before the apartheid regime fell? He will know that one of his hon. Friends, who has the most dreadful personal reasons to know about this in detail, said that the measures bore an extraordinary and chilling resemblance to the pass laws in South Africa. Since the right hon. Gentleman has personal knowledge of BOSS and its methods, perhaps he could explain whether the proposed house arrest is similar to what Verwoerd and his cohorts had in South Africa.

Peter Hain: I have reason to know quite a lot about what went on in South Africa. The rule of law did not apply in South Africa, where it would not have been possible for Law Lords to overturn a provision in an Act in the way that they did here. We were dealing with an apartheid police state in which people disappeared, never to be seen again. People were killed, harassed, intimidated and wounded. Many suffered appallingly. To try to compare the apartheid police state, which imprisoned Nelson Mandela for 10,000 days of his life, with conditions in Britain today, when we face a serious security threat from al-Qaeda and suicide bomber terrorists, who if they got the chance would blow everyone up, including themselves, is monstrous.

Andrew Robathan: What about the ANC?

Peter Hain: The activities of the African National Congress bore no resemblance to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks, and it is unacceptable for the hon. Gentleman to suggest anything to the contrary. It shows how baseless his allegation is.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend will know that for more than a decade, the major regional airports in this country have been in favour of an open skies policy for foreign airlines because they believe, with some justice, that that would improve local economies and create jobs. The Civil Aviation Authority has recently examined the freedom rights for foreign airlines. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an immediate debate on the matter so that we can have a clearpreferably positivestatement on it from the Secretary of State for Transport?

Peter Hain: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate, but he has the chance to apply for one, and the Secretary of State for Transport will answer questions on Tuesday. He will want to note my hon. Friend's comments and important points.

David Burnside: When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced a range of sanctions on Tuesday in response to the widespread criminality for which the Sinn Fein-IRA republican movement is responsible throughout Ireland, he said that the Government would find time for the House to debate the allowances that are granted at Westminster to Sinn Fein Members of Parliament. When will that debate take place? Will the Leader of the House assure us that we will have the opportunity to vote not only on financial allowances, which mean nothing to a multibillionaire organisation such as Sinn Fein, but on access, offices, security passes and employment of staff in the Palace of Westminster? Will he assure us that the House will vote on all those matters, not only on small financial allowances?

Peter Hain: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be an opportunity to decide the matter next month, although I cannot confirm the exact date. The motion that I intend to table will be restricted to allowances, in line with the Secretary of State's statement. However, it will be amendable and the hon. Gentleman will have the chance to table amendments. If they are selected, he can make any points he wishes.

David Cairns: Can we have a debate on the Government's priorities for their presidency of the G8 and the EU? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as well as debt and aid, on which the Government have an outstanding record, we will also deal with the international global rules, which work against the best interests of the people of Africa, and especially the much needed reform of the common agricultural policy, for which he pushed when he was Minister for Europe? Will he lend his support to my constituents who are campaigning hard to have Inverclyde recognised as a fair trade area?

Peter Hain: I will be pleased to back my hon. Friend's constituents' request and his campaign on their behalf. As he says, the Government lead the world on pressing for trade justice, including the ability of poor countries in Africa to get into existing protected markets, such as the EUwe want the CAP to be abolishedand the United States. It is abhorrent that rich markets in the world block themselves against trade from poor countries. In addition, we are increasing overseas aid and development assistance and working to lift the burden of debt from the poorest countries. I am delighted that my hon. Friend's constituents are taking up that cause.

Alistair Burt: It is essential that the public are assured that civil servants who offer advice to Ministers can do so in an honest and open climate. In view of the statement on the record in the recently published Yarl's Wood inquiry by a senior Home Office civil servant that disagreements over policy, even if it was patent nonsense, ran the risk of civil servants being branded as troublemakers and not one of us, thus making reasoned debate forbidden, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Office responds to the allegations as a matter of urgency? Must we assume that such an oppressive climate for the giving of opinion by civil servants continues to exist?

Peter Hain: Obviously, the Home Secretary will want to pay close attention to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of his constituent. I make a general point, which is not related to his constituent, that the phrase not one of us came from Mrs. Thatcher and the practice that she instituted of effectively promoting a coterie of civil servants who tended to support her policies. That is where the problem lay, not in anything that this Government are doing.

Chris Bryant: The Leader of the House knows that consumer credit organisationsbanks and credit card companiesuse many aggressive marketing techniques to persuade people to take out loans that they often do not understand, and in many cases simply cannot afford. The Consumer Credit Bill will do a great deal to rectify that, but does my right hon. Friend believe that we will manage not only to get through Third Reading next week but to get the Lords to complete their consideration, so that the Bill will be on the statute book in time for the general election?

Peter Hain: I very much hope that that is the case and that, in the event of an earlier rather than a later general election, the Opposition will co-operate with the Government on that Bill and others that are much needed by our constituents to get rid of loan sharks and protect poor and vulnerable individuals and families. I hope that the House of Lords and the Opposition would give the Consumer Credit Bill a fair wind if it came to an early election, and the negotiations that always follow in those circumstances.

David Taylor: Could we have a debate soon on the early performances of the National Offender Management Service, which have been deeply disappointing to many people? It seems to lack a clear strategy or sense of direction. It appears to have an insatiable desire to flog off public assets, privatise core activities and, despite Gershon, expand civil service bureaucracy at the expense of front-line staff. Could the Minister with responsibility for prisons lead a debate on that organisation?

Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a measure on that matter before the House, and those issues could be tackled in debates on it.

John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a bunch of fundamentalist thugs called Christian Voice, who have recently strong-armed a cancer charity into refusing a donation from the production Jerry SpringerThe Opera. I do not care how good or bad the production is, but it should concern us all that a cancer charity of all things can be intimidated into that position by such a dodgy outfit. Can we have a debate on the matter?

Peter Hain: I hope that my hon. Friend manages to secure a debate on that matter. I cannot promise him one, for the reasons that I have already explained. The instance to which he refers is troubling and the behaviour of those involved is unacceptable. My hon. Friend described them correctly.

Mark Tami: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), will my right hon. Friend allow time for an early debate on the work of cancer charities? We must not lose sight of their tremendous work and the support that they provide to sufferers and their families. Does he agree that a good way of showing support for Marie Curie Cancer Care would be to buy a Marie Curie daffodil for St. David's day?

Peter Hain: Yes, I do. That sounds like an instruction to me to go out and buy one, which I shall do immediately. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that important issue. The work of cancer charity organisations in all our constituencies is important, and they deserve the support of us all.

Andrew Miller: In responding to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), my right hon. Friend read out a list of measures that are currently going through the parliamentary process, but he did not list the Road Safety Bill. Will he assure me that time will be found to complete the passage of that measure? It is about saving lives, and I hope that we will get cross-party consensus on it if there is an early general election.

Peter Hain: I very much hope so, too, and I applaud my hon. Friend for his work as patron of RoadPeace and his other work to tackle road safety problems. This is an important Bill, as are a lot of others such as the Consumer Credit Bill and the Identity Cards Bill. We hope that, in the normal fashion, the Opposition will behave in a constructive way so that the interests of our constituents can be put above party interests and Parliament can discharge its duty to road safety victims or, in this instance, potential future victims.

David Chaytor: The Government will be considering their negotiating strategy on the forthcoming nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. My right hon. Friend will remember the important role that he played in the previous NPT review conference five years ago. In view of the escalating concerns about proliferation, not only in North Korea and Iran but in many other countries, both members of the NPT and those outside the NPT, could he find time for a debate on this crucial conference that will be held within the next few weeks?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the role that I played in the 2000 conference in New York. For the first time, we managed to get an agreement between the permanent five nuclear states and the new agenda coalition of countries, which gave the NPT new force, a new vision and a new objective. It remains the cornerstone of our international policy, and I hope that we will manage to get a similar agreement between the different countries involved, both nuclear and non-nuclear, to take forward a common agenda, especially on the frightening degree of nuclear proliferation that is happening now across the world.

Mark Hendrick: I have in my possession a copy of a letter from the Muslim Council of Britain's secretary-general, Mr. Iqbal Sacranie, to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), expressing the concern of British Muslims at the Liberal Democrats' opposition to the Government's amendment to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill relating to religious hatred. If this Bill does not receive Royal Assent because of the opposition of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, will the next Government reintroduce it as quickly as possible?

Peter Hain: If, as I hope, the next Government are a Labour Government, we will certainly do so. It is important, however, that the whole Muslim community right across Britain understands that the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are seeking to sabotage this important protection against incitement to religious hatred, which gives the Muslim community protection that it does not enjoy and that it desperately wants. Therefore, Labour is acting in the interest of Muslims, as we have done for generations and always will do.

Points of Order

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions, the Leader of the House indicated that a significant Government amendment to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which we will consider on Monday, was likely or possible. He also made a remark or two about the question of manuscript amendments, which I had raised with him. Would it be possible for you or Mr. Speaker to explain what the arrangements for manuscript amendments are likely to be on Monday, as it is obviously a matter of great importance, with so much changing at a late stage? Can it also be confirmed that the time when a general election is called is entirely a matter for the Prime Minister, and if he calls one four months into the parliamentary Session, it is hardly surprising if he does not get a full year's business in?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, on the question of amendments to the Bill, there are still two sitting days in which amendments can be tabled. I understand that more than 100 amendments have currently been tabled, and a preliminary selection will take place during tomorrow, the next sitting day. There is still an opportunity to table further amendments, however. Clearly, once that selection has taken place in light of all those amendments that have been put before me, the question of manuscript amendments will be given the usual careful consideration. There is still plenty of opportunity to avoid last-minute measures, however.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noted the points that I made in business questions to the Leader of the House regarding the legal advice of the Attorney-General in respect of the war and the question that I raised with the Prime Minister on 11 March 2003. I have considerable concern about the answer that I received from the Solicitor-General, in which she said:
	The Attorney-General has given a written answer to a question from Baroness Ramsey in the House of Lords today[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 515W]
	14 March 2003
	in the following terms.
	It then sets out the truncated advice.
	It is clear that uncertainty exists in respect of the advice that the Attorney-General gave to the Butler inquiry, when he said:
	they shortly, of course, set out my view.
	The question therefore needs to be resolved, perhaps through a statement or some investigation by Mr. Speakerwith whom I raised the matter on 14 March 2003, I thinkwith regard to the confidentiality of the advice. Can you give me some guidance as to how we can get to the bottom of what exactly was meant by those words in the Butler inquiry, bearing in mind that the Butler inquiry was apparently prepared to abandon its proceedings altogether because it was getting unsatisfactory answers to questions relating to the advice on the war?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The one person who is least qualified to achieve the end that the hon. Gentleman seeks is the Speaker or the occupant of the Chair. Clearly, scope exists for the hon. Gentleman to pursue this matter in other ways. If I may say so, he has taken two opportunities to do so today, and I have no doubt that he is resourceful enough to find other ways. It really cannot be resolved on a point of order for the Chair, however.

Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

John Spellar: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Timetable

1. Proceedings on the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Six o'clock.

Timing of proceedings and questions to be put

2. When the Bill has been read a second time
	(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put, and
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Subsequent stages

6.(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	7.(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

8.(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub paragraph (3) the Chairman shall
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

9. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	10. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
	11. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	12. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re commit the Bill.
	13. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	14.(1) This paragraph applies if
	(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock, Three o'clock or Four o'clock (as the case may be), but
	(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.
	(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
	15. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	16. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	I shall be brief. In seeking the House's agreement to the allocation of time motion, I shall explain the urgency with which the Government are seeking to progress the Bill and why it is necessary to take it through all its stages in the House today.
	Currently, only 85 per cent. of eligible individuals are registered in Northern Ireland. That compares with around 93 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are important local elections due in Northern Ireland in May and we think that it is important that as many electors as possible are given the opportunity to vote. For that reason, I made my statement to the House in November.
	To make this possible, we have decided to put back on to the register around 81,000 electors who did not re-register during last year's annual canvass. However, to have the chance to vote, they must be back on the register in time for it to be used for those elections. The register is published on 1 April 2005. It is therefore essential that this Bill becomes law as quickly as possible.
	I concede that we had intended to include these provisions in a much more comprehensive Bill that would have come before the House if the talks between the political parties had been successful. Unfortunately, as we are only too well aware, that was not to be, so we have had to produce this Bill as fast as we could to strengthen democracy in Northern Ireland and to do so in time for the May local elections.

David Trimble: I hope that I am anticipating the Minister, but I intervene in case he is not going to make this point. The Democratic Unionist party-Sinn Fein deal broke down in December, and he would have known at that stage that he would not be able to proceed with the larger Bill to which he referred. I presume that the clauses relating to this matter were already in hand. Surely, therefore, the Government could have introduced this measure earlier so as to proceed through the House in the normal way rather than having to proceed in the extraordinary way employed this week, going through the other place in two days and this place in just one.

John Spellar: We had to get the exact details right, which we had to do in consultation with the parties. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we discussed that with all political parties and those meetings had to be consistent with the meetings that we were holding with regard to broader matters. There is also significant pressure on parliamentary counsel at the moment, with a considerable amount of legislation relating to Northern Ireland as well as elsewhere.
	Those are the reasons for the delay. The reason that we need to get the legislation in now is, as I said, to have the register right for the local elections. Accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.

David Lidington: I will be brief.
	I have much sympathy with what was said by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I hope that the Government will learn a lesson and realise that, even if various details are still a matter for consultation, it is in the interests of the Houseincluding Members who do not represent the Northern Ireland political partiesto have access to the Government's legislative proposals, although they may be in draft form.
	The Minister gave the game away to some extent when he spoke of pressure on parliamentary counsel. There is an object lesson there not just for Northern Ireland Ministers, but for the entire Government. The Government are legislating too much, when fewer laws better prepared, better drafted and better scrutinised would be in the national interest. The Minister might well recommend a different approach to his colleagues.
	I acknowledge that the Northern Ireland local government elections on 5 May impose a deadline and that, following discussions in the past few days, the Government have produced a programme motion that is less restrictive than it might have been. They have imposed a 6 pm deadline, rather than trying to impose limits on the Bill's various stages.
	We do not propose to divide the House on the motion and I hope that we can proceed swiftly to debate the Bill itself.

Lembit �pik: The Liberal Democrats also accept the Minister's allocation of time, but I have two thoughts. First, on 30 November, Ministers were saying in statements that there was a problem. It seems rather as if, notwithstanding the consultations that were necessary, everything has been left until the last minute. Secondly, as the Minister himself said, there is substantial pressure on various Departments, especially the Home Office, to push through a large amount of legislation.
	What surprises me is the unseemly haste. We know that the general election could take place as late as June 2006. There is plenty of time for the Government to get the Bill throughunless, of course, they are implying that there will be a general election on 5 May.

John Spellar: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that local council elections will take place in Northern Ireland in May.

Lembit �pik: But the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which we discussed yesterday, has nothing to do with local elections in Northern Ireland. Surely this Bill, which must accord with the elections to which the Minister refers, is rather more pressing than some of the other Bills that are being discussed.

David Burnside: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government announced the date of the general election by moving the date of the Northern Ireland local government elections to 5 May? I fail to understand why he even questions the Government on when the general election will take place.

Lembit �pik: I do not want us to end up discussing the date of the general election rather than the allocation of time for the Bill. I merely say that this looks more than a little suspicious to those of us who believe that the Government had ulterior motives in moving the local elections to 5 May. I think that there is a pretty loud siren call from Northern Ireland to the rest of us to prepare for that date.
	A characteristic of Northern Ireland policy making and legislation passing is that we always seem to do it in a rush. That is no way to run the Province. Along with Northern Ireland Members and Conservative Members, I have often expressed frustration at the fact that Ministers seem to play fast and loose with the small amount of time that we are given to debate important issues. Let me repeat a call that has come from all the Opposition parties: please will the Government be more considerate in regard to the amount of time that they allow for other legislation? However, in this particular instance, I think that we shall have more than enough time to do what the Government want to do.

David Trimble: The motion is unusual in two respects. First, I understand that the Conservative party does not intend to press it to a Division. That is a departure for the Conservatives, who, I believe, operate a policy of always dividing on timetable motions. Members may also notice that, on this occasion, we are not graced, as we normally are during debates on programme motions, by the presence of some of the ornaments of the Conservative party. Consequently, we will not enjoy the entertainment to which the House has been accustomed on such occasions. I hasten to add that I have no intention of trying to emulate the persons to whom I have referred.
	The second respect in which the motion is unusual is that this time the Government have not imposed a guillotine for each stage of the Bill, but allowed us to debate all its stages until 6 pm. Indeed, if I have read the Order Paper correctly and if the business motion is moved at 6 pm, it could be debated until even later. In any event, we have been allowed to do what comes naturally in debating Second Reading and the Committee stage. I want to record my appreciation of this slightly more liberal guillotine and my thanks to the Government Whips.
	That brings me to my main point, which is that the programme motion is wholly unnecessary. This is a very short Bill with only two clauses of substance; the other clauses relate to minor matters. I may be proved wrong, but I do not think that there is any great controversy over the central measure. Concern will be expressed about what it may portend, and whether it portends a change in Government policy. There will be concern about how it will operate practically and a desire for safeguards, but I do not think that Members in any part of the House wish to frustrate a move that will include in the electoral register people who would otherwise not be entitled to vote.
	I am not trying to anticipate our later debate, but I see little likelihood of opposition to the Bill or of filibuster throughout the day. That is why I think the motion is unnecessary. The fact that it is there, albeit in a slightly more liberal form than usual, reflects the Government's highly illiberal attitude to legislation. Although I was not present for the business statement because I was in my office upstairs, I watched it on the monitor, and heard the Leader of the House once again attempt to defend the Government's practice of programming by claiming that it resulted in proper consideration of legislation. That, of course, is utter and arrant nonsense. Programme motions have not improved the quality of consideration of Bills, and, like nearly all the changes introduced by the Government, they have not improved the work of the House.
	Last night, I sat listening to some Labour Members bemoaning the poor quality of this Parliament and the one preceding it, in terms of their ineffectiveness and inability to hold the Government properly to account. Labour Members do not realise that that is largely due to the changes that they, in their naivety, allowed the Government to make. Nearly all those changes have made life easier for Government and made it more difficult for Members to perform one of their basic functions. I just wanted to put that on record. I have not taken the same opportunities that other Members have taken to express my view on the changes in, and deterioration in quality of, the House during the last two Parliaments. We can hope for better in the future.

Nigel Dodds: I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), in that the way in which today's business is being conducted is symptomatic of how Northern Ireland Office legislation and matters affecting Northern Ireland tend to be dealt with in this House. I recall a number of occasions when legislationsome of it controversial, or of major significancewas brought before the House to be dealt with in a single day's proceedings. Although this Bill is not as controversial as some others, it is unfortunate and regrettable that that procedure tends to be adopted for legislation affecting Northern Ireland.
	I find it odd that, whereas two days were provided for consideration of the Bill in another place, we are dealing with all stages in one dayand on a Thursday afternoon at thatwhen there is another pressure in play in Members' desire to return to their homes and constituencies, especially given the current weather, which we discussed earlier. Those factors will doubtless impinge on the length of Members' contributions this afternoon. Having said that, I think that we will be able to deal with the Bill, which is generally welcomed, fairly speedily. However, those points need to be put on the record, and I hope that we will have fewer instances of such procedure being used for controversial legislation, about which I will not say very much, given that we are discussing the allocation of time motion. For example, future legislation on parades will be dealt with upstairs in Committee in one and a half hours, which is frankly inadequate.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 200405, HC 131, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 2nd April 2003, Session 200203, HC 619-i, on Electoral Registration in Northern Ireland.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

John Spellar: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I will begin by setting out what this short Bill does and then explain its context and why its introduction is necessary at this time. It gives the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland the power to re-register former electors on to the Northern Ireland electoral register by 1 April 2005. Former electors are individuals who appeared on the register published on 1 September 2004, but who failed to return that year's annual canvass or failed to complete it accurately, so did not appear on the register published on 1 December 2004.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for taking such an early intervention. The whole purpose of the electoral fraud legislation passed by this House in 2002 was to put in place additional identifiers to stamp out the serious problem of electoral fraud. What is the point of putting back on to the register electors who failed to comply with the requirement to provide the proper identifiers?

John Spellar: People who were previously properly recorded on the electoral register will have been through that verification process. They were on the register running from 2003 to 2004 precisely because they had filled in the forms properly and had been checked. In 2004, they either did not return the forms, for which there are many possible reasons, or they did not fill them in accurately, but those individuals had already been checked. So we are not changing the procedure for properly identifying individuals or the procedures for verifying voters at polling stations. I shall return to that matter.

Lady Hermon: The Minister is being most generous in giving way again. If an elector has changed address, how will the chief electoral officer check the accuracy of the identifiers?

John Spellar: In cases where the officer does not believe that the elector has moved or that someone else resides at the address in question, he already has the identifiers for those voters. He already has their national insurance numbers and dates of birth, which is why they are included on the existing register. The difficulty that we faceit is reinforced by today's report on electoral registrationis that whereas one might have anticipated a one-step drop in the electoral register as a result of its being cleaned up and of the changes introduced in previous legislation, in fact there is year-on-year decline. That is why there has been considerable and widespread cross-community concern that although the register is now highly accurate, because everyone who is on it is supposed to be on it, it is definitely becoming less comprehensive because not everyone who should be on it is. I will identify some of the differential effects shortly.

Mark Tami: Does my right hon. Friend agreehe has just touched on this issuethat the previous legislation was intended to prevent fraud, rather than to deter people from taking part in a proper democratic process?

John Spellar: As I have said, there are many measures that prevent register and voting fraud. For the latter, photo identity is an example, and we rightly propose to make no change in that regard.

Gregory Campbell: Can the Minister explain the effect of this restoration? He said that the UK average for persons eligible to be on the register was 93 per cent. and that the figure for Northern Ireland is now 85 per cent. What will that percentage be, assuming that the Bill is passed today?

John Spellar: The Bill will certainly improve itby approximately 81,000 electorsbut we should allow for the fact that every week that figure is reduced. For example, the registrar produces a weekly report on the deaths that have occurred and by other means it might become clear to the registrar that certain people have moved. Of course, there might also be a new registration at a different address.

David Trimble: I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). The Minister referred to registration figures of 93 per cent. for Great Britain and of 85 per cent. for Northern Ireland. Although we will eventually have an effective register of citizens as a consequence of the identity card legislationthat is one of the advantages of that legislationwe do not currently have one, so how can the Minister be sure that those figures are accurate?

John Spellar: We work on the most reliable census figures, but there will be a degree of inaccuracy in them, as some of the challenges to the census have made clear to us. However, the census figures for both jurisdictions make it clear that a considerably lower percentage of those recorded in the census are registered as electors in Northern Ireland than are registered in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill will increase the registration figure to more than 90 per cent., but we do not regard this as the long-term answer. It is an interim measure to enable us to have a more comprehensive register while we look at the whole question of electoral registration.
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is right, in that an identity card register might completely change the way in which an electoral register is drawn up. In some continental countries, for example, the register is entirely drawn from the residential register because, whether or not one is a citizen in those jurisdictions, it is a requirement, on moving, to register with the local authority. In Holland, that information is gathered together into one national register, which is also used for vehicle licensing and other purposes.
	Those are some of the broader issues, but today we are dealing with an interim measure to deal with a recognised problem before May this year.

David Burnside: rose

John Spellar: I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman, after his earlier intervention in which he objected to harmonising arrangements between the United KingdomI mean Great Britainand Northern Ireland.

David Burnside: The Minister's Freudian slip speaks for itself.
	Does the Minister accept that lower registration in Northern Ireland stems from the general disillusionment of the citizens of Northern Ireland? We have more elections than any other part of the United Kingdom. Over the last 20 or 30 years, we have constantly had elections, but the democratic mandateas in the Assembly elections at the end of last year, for exampleis not reflected in concrete governmental terms. There is no reaction on the ground. We can elect an Assembly, but it does not operate; we elect local government, but it has very few powers. There is a general disillusionment with political society in Northern Ireland because of the lack of powers to govern the Province and affect its future.

John Spellar: That argument may imply that people decide not to participate in elections by not voting. We want to ensure that every citizen who is eligible to vote has the ability to participate when election day comes and is not prevented from doing so because of non-appearance on the register. Incidentally, what we are proposing is not unusual in a number of countries. In Australia, which has slightly later registration once an election has been announced, about 500,000 electors apply within a few weeks to be on the register. It is indefensible in democratic terms not to ensure that we have the most comprehensive register possible. The Bill is designed to achieve that.

Lembit �pik: While the Minister is considering the need to get 81,000 people on the list, will he answer a question that is on many people's minds? Is it not the case that some of those 81,000 may never have existed in the first place and may be bogus voters? The Minister may have a good answer to that question, which I have been asked many times. It would be helpful to have his answer on the record.

John Spellar: That argument could have been made about previous electoral registers, but as a result of the 2002 legislation, there was a major clean-up of the register. Subsequently, all those registered were checked in respect of their personal identifiers, so they have already been verified as individuals on the register. Some of the concerns previously expressed are no longer relevant because the safeguards on voting are stronger. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has tabled an amendment that we can debate later. I hope to be able to allay some of the concerns about postal or proxy voting, but the great majority of votes are cast at a polling station and I have pointed out the safeguards that apply in those circumstances, which I hope reassures hon. Members.

Harry Barnes: Would it not be difficult for a person who did not exist to secure a photo identity card?

John Spellar: We are perhaps now touching on some of the broader areas of theology.

Nigel Dodds: While the Minister is in the mood for allaying fears, I want to put another concern to him and I am sure that he will provide a good answer. Could any of the 81,000 electors being carried forward include any who had died in the meantime? That question has been put to me and it would be helpful to have the Minister's answer on the record.

John Spellar: I thought that I had answered that earlier. The carry-over arrangements for the electoral register include the mechanism for the registrar to be notified on a weekly basis of any deaths registered during that period. The list will therefore be cleaned up regularly. That concern applies to the current register in any case, not just to the carry-over register. The same procedures apply in each case. It reminds me of the anecdote about a little Mexican boy crying on the street in south Texas. Asked why he is crying, he says that he is upset because his father did not come to see him. When told, Your father has been dead for seven years, he replies: I know, but on Saturday he was in town and voted for Lyndon Johnson, yet he never came to see me. That would no longer be a problem because of the regular clean-up of the register. As I said, it applies to both parts of the register.
	It would be as well if I made some progress

Lady Hermon: The Minister is gracious in taking so many interventions, which I greatly appreciate. On the question whether any of the 81,000 names go back on the register, will he clarify one particular issue? When the properly registered electors were first included on the register, it was in connection with a particular address. That is part of the identification scheme. If, in the interim, someone moves and subsequently dies at the new address, how can the Minister guarantee that no voting papers will be issued to the original address at which the elector, sadly, no longer resides?

John Spellar: The answer is simply because of the national insurance number identifier. Cross-matches are regularly undertaken. I am a little cautious, because I cannot quite remember whether we have actually carried out the first cross-checksor are about to do sobetween the national insurance register and the electoral register. In any case, that is the clean-up mechanism and there are a range of such mechanisms in place. I return to the point that anyone who wants to vote will have to secure a photo identity card. As the hon. Lady knows, a driving licence or pensioner's bus pass can be used. I stress that these cross-checks do not exist in the rest of the United Kingdom, but I believe that they provide, for Northern Ireland, a considerable degree of assurance as to the integrity of the register and the electoral process.
	I want to make some progress, though many of the issues have already been covered in my responses to interventions. The Bill also gives the chief electoral officer the power to carry forward the names of electors who fail to complete the annual canvass form in 2005 on to the register published on 1 December 2005. The provision expires after one year, but may be renewed for a further year by order of the Secretary of State.
	On the restoration to the electoral register of names previously removed, clause 1 gives the chief electoral officer the power to put back on the electoral register those electors who were on the register on 15 October 2004 but did not re-register during the autumn canvass in 2004. That takes effect on 1 April 2005. If the chief electoral officer has information suggesting that the former elector has ceased to be resident at the relevant address or that the registration conditions set out in previous legislationthe Representation of the People Act 1983no longer apply, the chief electoral officer cannot exercise his power in relation to a former elector.
	I have already stressed that the personal identifiers that the former electors gave when they originally registered will be kept when they are restored to the register. To respond to another question put to me, an elector's previously expressed preference as to whether they wanted their name to be on the full or the edited version of the register will still be binding.
	Clauses 2 and 3 modify the 1983 Act to ensure that the chief electoral officer can retain names on the register after an annual canvass until the publication of the updated register after the next annual canvass. The power does not apply to former electors added to the register under clause 1. An elector's name can be carried over only for 12 monthsthat is importantand, unless they re-register, they will be removed from the register. It is a one-off exercise for an elector, even in the event of that one renewal by the Secretary of State. That applies only to those whom the chief electoral officer has no reason to believe are no longer at the address given. That power will automatically lapse unless specifically extended by the Secretary of State for a maximum period of one year.
	I shall briefly give the background because it is important to put it on the record. In Great Britain, the Representation of the People Act 1983 allows the name of an elector to remain on the register after a canvass until the registration officer determines that they are not entitled to so remain. That is referred to as the carry-forward. In Northern Ireland, names must be removed if no form is submitted or if the form submitted does not include all the information required.
	The effect is to prevent a carry-forward of names from year to year unless the chief electoral officer receives a properly completed form. That was introduced by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. The measures introduced in 2002 have been successful in reducing fraud and increasing the accuracy of the register, but an unfortunate consequence has been that, although there was a one-off fall in the register as we anticipated, there has also been a consistent fall in the number registered year on year. We believethe belief is widely held in Northern Irelandthat that risks damaging the integrity of the register due to a lack of comprehensiveness.

David Trimble: The Minister said, correctly, that the introduction of the 2002 Act was expected to result in an initial reduction as it cleaned out false registrations and phantom voters. However, as he also said, there has been a subsequent fall. I may be anticipating what he is about to say, but I hope that he will consider the reasons for that subsequent fall and what the continuing fall is. That would be worth while because the Bill is a one-off measure; we must look to the future and consider how to ensure that people register. We know the cause of the one-off drop, but what is the cause of the continuing drop?

John Spellar: There are multiple causes, many of which are common to democratic societies. They include increasing social mobility, lower registration by younger people, people becoming more averse to filling in endless forms and so on. All those factors are comprehensible and can be addressed. We must consider a range of measures and we are looking at methods in other countries, such as cross-referencing to driving licences, social security and national insurance records, notification of change of address to the Post Office and other utilities, the sale of houses and new registration of house ownership, housing association properties and so on. Many of those refer to a previous point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about an identity register. However, in the absence of those procedures, we must address the problems. They are not unique to the United Kingdom or to Northern Ireland, but we must consider how to tackle them.
	In the meantime, we have the immediate problem of a substantial shortfallthat is generally agreedbetween the number of people who are eligible to be registered and the number who are registered. No one would argue that it is undesirable to have the maximum possible registration and no one would argue for attempts, as we have seen in some other jurisdictions, artificially to depress the register by administrative means. That would be unacceptable to all democratically minded people and I know that that argument would not be made today. Therefore, we must consider how to ensure the most comprehensive register possible. We need to consider longer term measures, which I intend to explore with the political parties during the next few months. In the meantime, we must take actionwe have received representations from across the community for thatto deal with the particular problem facing us now.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister has said several times that this is a one-off problem, but that the Government must address the ongoing problem. Will there be any research into the 80,000-plus voters who will be restored to the register as a result of the Bill? For example, many people believe that younger voters are predominant among the 80,000. Will there be any research to ensure that the younger age group of voters will be targeted to ensure maximum electoral registration and maximum turnout at elections?

John Spellar: Yes, indeed. We have commissioned work from the Electoral Commission to discover the reasons for the continuing fall and the shortfall. We are also undertaking our own work to consider how other jurisdictions ensure the most comprehensive register possible.
	The main Northern Ireland parties have been lobbying Ministers hard to introduce measures to alleviate the falling numbers on the register. There is general concern, particularly about the shortfall among younger people, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry said. Therefore, we have decided to re-introduce the carry-forward temporarily until we can put in place new registration arrangements for Northern Ireland in the longer term.
	The Bill is important because the electoral register should be accurate and comprehensive. Putting an additional 83,000 electors back on to the register will strengthen the democratic process in Northern Ireland, particularly with important local elections due in May.

David Trimble: I hope that the Minister can respond to a matter that he has not yet touched on. He referred to the desirability of having as many people as possible on the register. It is also desirable to have the register available to people, particularly with the prospect of at least one election. Those involved in political activity need to have the register available as soon as possible. The Bill does not take effect until 1 April. Will a new register be published on 1 April, or is that being too optimistic?

John Spellar: That touches on an amendment that has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats and I shall address the matter when we come to that amendment. We recognise the desire for the comprehensive register to be available as soon as possible and, if it is administratively feasible, I hope that it will be produced before 1 April for that reason. We are considering the possibility of doing that because I recognise the need for political parties to be able to access the electorate as early as possible. I shall deal with the matter in greater detail when we come to the amendment.
	I appreciate some of the concerns that were raised during the debate on the programme motion about fast-tracking the Bill and cutting down some of the time available for debate. There has been adequate discussion and consultation since November and we need to implement the Bill because those electors must be able to vote in the forthcoming local elections.
	I thank hon. Members for their constructive comments and look forward to responding to any detailed matters that are raised. I commend the Bill to the House.

David Lidington: The Opposition accept that the Bill has been introduced to try to remedy a real problem. It was made clear during exchanges in response to interventions from Unionist Members that everyone expected the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 to lead to a fall in the number of registered electors in the Province. It certainly did that, because about 120,000 electors, amounting some 10 per cent. of the entire register, were removed. What was not expected was that that would be followed by a year-on-year decline in the number of people registered to vote.
	The Minister has given the Government's assessment that only about 85 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland are now registered to vote compared with about 93 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. Not only the Government but the Electoral Commission and the Select Committee on Northern Ireland have expressed concern about that state of affairs. In its report on the operation of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) 2002 Act, the commission explicitly pointed to the abolition of the ability to allow names to be carried forward for one year as probably the chief reason for the continuing fall in the number of registered electors.
	One has to ask, as others have done already in the debate, why those people have not registered. I suppose that for some it was a matter of deliberate choice. For others it was probably, if we are honest, sheer laziness, or due to the mislaying of a form. I am obviously speculating here, but I suspect that the chief reason is that there are plenty of people who are not terribly interested in politics and for whom the task of re-registering annually is one of those things that they do not regard as a particularly high priority.

Lady Hermon: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that one of the significant reasons why people do not register every year is that there is an education problem here. The Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer need to advertise more clearly especially to older voters who enjoy voting and vote regularly that a change has taken place and they are now expected to register every year. That is the main problem.

David Lidington: The hon. Lady makes a perfectly fair point. When I consulted my own party organisation about our approach to this Bill, a comment was made to me by a senior agent that people in Northern Ireland might well have expected that, having once registered with the unique identifier, they had done the job for good and all, and that they would not have to repeat the process annually.
	So we have to decide today whether we can make it easier for people who are genuinely entitled to vote to remain on the register without compromising the safeguards against fraud that were built into the 2002 Act. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer in due course. Some of the points that I intended to make have already been covered, so I will not labour them at length. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) referred to how deaths influence the composition of the register. The Minister gave us an answer that provided some reassurance that the chief registration officer notifies the chief electoral officer every week of those people in Northern Ireland who have died and provides lists of their unique numbers. I hope that the Minister can confirm exactly the procedure that is followed. It seems a vital safeguard.
	Can the Minister be absolutely confident of the reliability of the data set of national insurance numbers? We hear from time to time in the House and in the media about the alleged widespread use of false national insurance numbers and of people who appropriate the national insurance numbers of citizens who have died. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that he can be confident that there is no gap in the anti-fraud regime as a consequence of that.

John Hayes: May I ask the Minister through my hon. Friend what alternatives to national insurance numbers were canvassed? My hon. Friend is right to say that worries about accuracy have been raised on occasions in the House. We carry all kinds of other things. National health numbers are an example, but there are many others. How were any alternatives judged to be inferior to national insurance numbers? What test has been made of that? There is a widespread worry in the House about the impermanence of all this and whether we are proceeding without having done that kind of homework. The Minister may be able to assure us that he has done it, but I would like to ask him through my hon. Friend whether he has.

David Lidington: I am sure that the Minister will have taken note of my hon. Friend's comments and that he will respond later.
	I move on to questions about people who have changed their address since their original registration. Clause 1(c) makes it unlawful for somebody to be re-registered if the chief electoral officer has information to suggest that that person is no longer resident at the address at which he was previously lawfully registered. What in practice does that safeguard mean? Does the chief electoral officer have the wherewithal to carry out checks on change of residence, or is all we are saying in the Bill that somebody who notifies the officer of a change in address will have his or her electoral registration duly altered? Are there other sources of information to which the chief electoral officer has access that would provide safeguards against the impersonation of somebody who had moved house and as a consequence had not registered at their previous address and had chosen, for whatever reason, not to register at their new address?
	I have a particular concern about younger voters. Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), I have seen figures that suggest that fewer than a quarter of 17 and 18-year-olds in Northern Ireland are registered to vote. We know that in general young people in their late teens and 20s are likely to be mobile; they may well change address relatively often. So re-registration as proposed in the Bill could put back on the register many people who have moved house but who have not bothered to tell the electoral authorities. If we consider that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, how likely is it that a paramilitary organisation linked to a political party could work out that at a particular address in Belfast or Londonderry a number of young electors had properly registered in the first instance, subsequently moved away and re-registered under the terms of the new legislation? In such circumstances, will there not be an opportunity for such an organisation to make applications for postal or proxy votes on behalf of those people who have moved away from their original registration address? I know that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) hopes to speak about that issue in later stages of the consideration of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to come forward with some persuasive reassurances at that stage, if not in response to the Second Reading debate. This is one of the most troublesome aspects of the Bill.

Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about how the votes could be misused. Is it also possible that one of the problems of younger voters dropping off the register is that registration takes place around August or September when some of them are moving away from home to university or other education establishments? In the past, their mother or father would put their name on the register, but no longer is that being done. Is there not a role for education there as well? It seems to me that once students are away sometimes they are forgotten about.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point.
	Finally, may I put it to the Minister that there may be a risk of intimidation? I simply ask the question: is it possible that some people have failed to re-register not through idleness but in order to make it impossible for them to be intimidated into voting for a particular candidate in an election in Northern Ireland? It seems to me that if one's name is on the register in Northern Ireland, one knows that the parties linked to the paramilitaries willadmittedly after the electionin due course have access to a marked register showing which electors have voted and which have not; and that knowledge on the part of the individual elector may make him or her more susceptible to intimidation by those paramilitaries into turning out, into casting a vote and into casting a vote in a particular direction. From the elector's point of view, to follow my hypothesis through, the only way to avoid any risk of that happening would be to decide not to go on the register at all. So is there a risk that in bringing this measure forward we shall actually make it easier in some circumstances for paramilitary groups to intimidate people who are very scared and have chosen not to register to vote in order to avoid being put in that predicament?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that members of the security forces, particularly police officers and those serving with the Royal Irish Regiment, have been advised at timesI am talking about security adviceto remove their names from the electoral register because of the threat of being identified through that mechanism and having their homes targeted? Does he share my concern that they may find themselves back on the electoral register again, and could be identified in the same manner as he has just outlined in terms of others who, for different reasons, would be concerned about intimidation?

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly legitimate point. Of course there are a number of electors in Great Britain as well who, for similar reasons, choose to withhold their address details from the published electoral register, and the hon. Gentleman has raised a further point that I hope the Minister will address, and certainly about which I trust that the Government have done some thinking and provided some answers.
	In conclusion, this legislation is all about trying to get the balance right. It is clearly wrong for there to be some tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are qualified to vote but who, as a result of inattention or a lack of publicity or for some other reason, will not be able to exercise the most fundamental of rights in a democracy. On the other hand, can we, through this Bill, provide a mechanism to redress that wrong without risking the framework of safeguards against fraud, impersonation and intimidation that the House enacted back in 2002?
	I shall await with interest the Minister's responses to the questions that not just I but other Members of all Opposition parties have posed.

Lembit �pik: The Minister will know that of late I have been increasingly unhappy with the lack of consultation regarding various aspects of legislation and initiatives taken by Northern Ireland Office Ministers in regard to the peace process and other matters. I am glad to say, and I give credit to the Minister and his colleagues for this, that the situation seems to be improving, and I am grateful for the proactive approach that the Government seem now to be taking in regard to consultation and inclusion of all parties in pre-legislative discussions of matters such as this one. It has been very helpful to hear and see the Government's perspective on the need for the Bill in advance of today's debate.
	It is also clear that we are not discussing the occasional omission or error that appears on electoral registers. We have all seen or heard of examples where somebody's pet or six-month-old child has turned up on the register, but we are now talking about the massive level of electoral fraud that bedevilled politics in Northern Ireland for a very long time, and to that extent it is salient and appropriate that this matter is being discussed in the run-up to the May electionsalthough, for the reasons that we discussed earlier and which I need not repeat, it does seem a little curious that the Government have left it so close to the last minute to do so.
	I remain slightly sceptical, however, and indeed a little uneasy, about the contents of the Bill, and that is because we supported the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and we are concerned that the Bill might to an extent dilute it. It was obviously sensible to tackle the huge problem of electoral fraud faced particularly by Northern Ireland, where democracy was really being undermined and where in some cases the outcome of elections may have been affected or compromised by fraud. Indeed, it was the Liberal Democrats, together with the other Opposition parties, who proposed the use of national insurance numbers as an additional personal identifier for electors when registering.
	Interestingly, in April 2004 the Electoral Commission published a report on the operation of the Assembly election of November 2003. Paragraph 5.63 of the report stated:
	The findings illustrate that suspicions of electoral fraud among presiding officers had reduced dramatically. This view was endorsed by a number of parties and candidates who felt the election was fair and free. One political party said they believed the election held in November 2003 was probably the 'cleanest and fairest' ever held in
	the north of Ireland. The Police Service of Northern Ireland
	confirmed that they had received no reports of attempted personation at any of the polling stations during election day. This was in direct contrast to previous elections when a small number of incidents of personation were reported directly to the police.
	So it does seem that the 2002 legislation is working.
	I have, however, a concern that the methodology designed to include the 83,000 or 81,000 people whom we have discussed might actually dilute the efficacy of the original legislation. The Minister indicated that there was a problem in a written statement published in Hansard on 30 November 2004. During the annual canvass last autumn, officers of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland had been, and were, calling at electors' houses to deliver and collect registration forms. Electors were written to and encouraged to fill in those forms, and still we ended up with a deficit of 83,000 people at that time.

Mark Tami: I accept a lot of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he accept that there might equally be a problem on the other side? There is a distinct possibility that at the next election some people who think they are still on the register will turn up at the polling station, discover that they cannot vote and then perhaps feel that a fraud has been committed against them.

Lembit �pik: That is an interesting point and a fair one, and I fear that such things happen in every election in England, Wales and Scotland as well as in the north of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is right, but I am not entirely convinced that the move that we are taking today will necessarily alleviate that problem. In response to what the hon. Gentleman says, I would ask the Minister, in his summation, to share his perspective on whether he thinks there will be a significant problem at the next elections in the Province of people who think they are registered but turn out not to be.
	It must also be said that there has been an intensive communication process with the citizens of Northern Ireland to encourage them to fill in their forms, and still we have ended up with 80,000 or so people who have not. I am still not clear in my mind why the Government think that this has occurred. It has been mooted to us by officials that perhaps there is just a lot of apathy about, but I am wondering what the chief electoral officer has actually done between the end of the annual canvass and today to establish why there has been a drop in registration. I suggest to the Minister that it would be helpful to have a definitive analysis of the cause. He also spoke about percentages and, although he may not be able to give us the statistic now, I should be grateful to know the figure for the number of people that it is estimated are not registered to vote in England, Wales and Scotland, because that comparison would probably be rather important. I suggest that there probably comes a ceiling beyond which it is extremely difficult to get people to register.
	On the legislation itself, electors can still register through the existing process for inclusion in the April register. Sinceto use a phrase that has been used beforethe dogs in the street now know that the general election is likely to take place on 5 May, there is a particular incentive to do so. Under the rolling registration process, I understand that the last date to register is 10 March. I wonder whether, since the Minister made a statement in November, the officers from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland have made significant attempts personally to contact the 80,000 or so people who will be affected by the legislation. I accept that that is a very large number, but personal contact may be the single most effective way to overcome the problem. Has anyone attempted to explain to those people that, unless they fill out an electoral registration form, they will not be able to vote? To some extent, that responds to the intervention from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) a few minutes ago.
	Surely it is much better to ensure that electors are registered properly in accordance with the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, rather than through the measures proposed in the Bill. That leads me to my concern: we are setting a precedent that might be rather difficult to get out of in the future. We can discuss the danger of having to re-enact this kind of last minute legislation when we debate the amendments. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will not use today's debate as a precedent for future debates and say, Well, back in February 2005, we made this exemption, so it's okay to do it again, because, as far as I am concerned, it is not. This is a one-off occasion when we will rather unhappily pass an exemption that should not be repeated.
	A very interesting point was made earlier about the possibility that students will be excluded because, unlike in the past, their parents will not be able to put their names on the register. I am particularly concerned about that, because students are obviously smart and we know that smart people tend to vote for the Alliance party of Northern Ireland. So my sister party stands to lose more than anybody else if students are not on the register. I seek the Minister's perspective on what we can do to ensure that those students do not fall through the net. I feel, therefore, that the Government have not really fully explored some of the alternative measures to those proposed in the Bill. We seek to make some modifications with the amendments that we will be discussing shortly.
	Finally, in some correspondence relating directly to the legislation, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has written to me and my colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party asking us to reconsider our sceptical stance on the Bill. In fact, he said:
	in the interests of democracy, it is important that the Northern Ireland register is both accurate and comprehensive. I firmly believe that this Bill will help us to achieve that objective.
	The Secretary of State and the Minister are more persuaded of the need for that than the Liberal Democrats; nevertheless, on the basis of the Minister's speech and his helpful responses to a number of interventions, the Liberal Democrats will agree to support the Bill today.

David Trimble: I start by commending what was done by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in terms of their approach to the Bill, which has resulted in the Bill before us being somewhat different from the Bill that we might have had originally. I will come back to that, because there are some really important points there.
	As has been said, we are operating in a context created by the electoral reform legislation. We regard that legislation as hugely important. There is no doubt but that Northern Ireland elections over the years have been attended by certain local customs, although I have to say that those customs are not unique to Northern Ireland. The extent of electoral abuse that existed in the past in Northern Ireland exists in some localities in Great Britain today, and indeed will be hugely increased by some of the Government's other proposals.
	The Minister may be aware of the very considerable concern about recent elections and referendums that exists in some areas in England, where there is increasing evidence of massive abuse through the novel practices that the Government have been introducing. That is not a matter for debate today, but it is so closely connected with this matter that the Government need to think. They have been doingI hope that they continue to dothe right thing in Northern Ireland, but they are not doing the right thing, in electoral terms, elsewhere. I hope that the practices that operate with regard to Northern Ireland elections are replicated elsewhere in the United Kingdom to deal with the abuse that exists there.
	I return to my central point that there were local customs in Northern Ireland, of which at one point, I suppose, there was a grudging acceptance in society. Indeed, in many respects, the practice of what was called personation operated as a sort of informal proxy votingI may come back to this later. People sometimes took advantage of it. However, in recent years, because of the way in which it has been organised by certain paramilitary-related parties and because of the intimidation that accompanied their actions, there was very real concern that the abuse was getting out of hand in some respects and was becoming something completely one-sided. That had been a concern of ours for a long time. As the Minister knows, we have been pressing for reform on this matter and we were glad to see reform come in the shape of the electoral reform legislation. We think that it is hugely important.
	The report quoted by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) expressed the opinion that the November 2003 election was probably the most honest that there had been in Northern Ireland. We share that view, and we are glad of that. We want to see elections that are honest and that have the greatest participation possible, which is why we approach the Bill with a slightly mixed mind. We are concerned that it might weaken the structure of the electoral reform legislation, but at the same time, we do not object in principle to putting people on the register. Indeed, we want to see people go on the registerbut they must be people who are entitled to be there.
	That brings me to the point that I touched on earlier in an intervention, which is that although we expected there to be a significant drop when the electoral reform legislation took effect, we thought that it would be a one-off. The continuing drop is a matter for concern. As a number of hon. Members said, it is something that ought to be looked into closely. Some work has already been done, but as was suggested in an intervention, it would be a very good idea for more to be done, and in particular, for an effort to be made to identify the 80,000-plus persons whose registration is about to be resumed, and to establish whether we can find out anything about their circumstances.
	The Minister referred to some of the reasons why people may allow their names to lapse, or not put themselves on the register, but hon. Members have also touched on three matters already in their interventions. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to the factit is a factthat many people associated with the security forces do not put their names on the register because they feel that by being on the register, they are making it easier for people to target them. That has been a factor. I do not think that it would be an increased factor at the moment. If anything, it might be a diminished factor, although, in the present uncertainty, who knows? But it certainly has been a factor in the past.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred to a significant factor when she spoke of the quality of the work done by the Electoral Commission, and whether enough was being done to draw people's attention to this fact, particularly with regard to old people. Again, I do not want to stray beyond the terms of the Bill, but we have grave concerns about the quality of the Electoral Commission's work, even on something as basic as why counts in Northern Ireland take so much longer than counts elsewhere. We all have to experience that irritation in Northern Ireland. I dare say that if there is something other than a local government election on 5 May, by the time the first results come out in Northern Ireland, everyone else in Great Britain will have gone home.

Andrew MacKinlay: You may hold the balance of power.

David Trimble: There was a happy occasion when that happened. It caused some confusion on the mainland in February 1973[Hon. Members: 1974.] I stand corrected. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) for assisting me.

Nigel Dodds: Always happy.

David Trimble: But never so felicitous.
	Slow counts are one of the many factors that concern us about the work of the Electoral Commission. The Bill deals with the creation of the register and the maintenance of an accurate register. I do not want to be too negative about the Electoral Commission, but the Minister should see whether there are ways to improve the quality of its work, because that is undoubtedly a factor.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made a good point that may explain the low take-up of registration by young people. Previous research mentioned that fact, but did not explain it, other than assuming that young people are more apathetic than others.

Andrew MacKinlay: Surely one of the great problems is the number of students from Northern Ireland who are studying at university on the United Kingdom mainland who either were not on the original register or are now in their second or third year. Those who are diligent and deem themselves residents of Northern Ireland could be treated unfairly, but there is also the potential for abuse if they are not retuning as frequently to Northern Ireland as they once did. The problem is the grey area of what constitutes a resident in respect of Northern Ireland students who are on the mainland.

David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that the problem of young people registering may be affected by the large number of people from Northern Ireland who attend university in Great Britain. However, I wonder whether that proportion is any higher than the proportion of people from an English region who are attending universities out of their region, perhaps 50, 100 or 200 miles away. The proportion of Northern Irish students on the mainland may be no higher. The existence of a bit of water does not affect ease of travel.

Andrew MacKinlay: This is an important point. There is a cultural difference. People from the mainland are encouraged by the National Union of Students and their families to register, and it is not considered irregular to be registered both at university in, say, Durham, and at home in Surrey. However, I can understand the diligent and responsible citizen of Northern Ireland hesitating, almost nervously, in case he is doing something improper by registering in both places. It is the decent people who will be nervous, because the Electoral Commission has not spelt out with clarity the ground rules in Northern Ireland.

David Trimble: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I would take further. The cultural difference is largely the result of people finding themselves operating in a different political environment when they move from Northern Ireland to GB. Why is that so? No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that it is because of the failure of the national political parties to be national parties. The fault lies to a large extent with the people who are not in the Chamber; I think we can cheerfully agree on that.
	The serious point is that people who have moved from, for example, Surrey to attend Edinburgh university will be approached by those who are involved in political activity to ask them whether they want to register in Edinburgh or to participate in the election at home. People from Northern Ireland might not be approached and targeted in the same way because they are likely to cast their votes at home, to which those involved in politics in Edinburgh or wherever are not motivated to have regard. The problem is underlined by an important fact that is of a more general nature. Again, I do not want to stray too far from the point, but there are political implications for the so-called national parties.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South mentioned timing. The months of August and September are not a good time for people to fill in the forms. That is true not only because young people are going to university, but because of the normal tempo and shape of family life. That should be taken on board.
	We need to look at the causes. Until we know what they are and find a way to address them, we cannot be sure that the problem will not continue. The one-off drop in registrations when the 2002 Act came into force was followed by a continuing drop, in response to which the Minister has proposed a Bill that is almost of a one-off character. It will operate for 12 months, but if we do not address the underlying problem satisfactorily, then what? Once the Bill ceases to have effect and people are no longer restored or carried forward in the way provided for in the Bill, will the Minister or his successor introduce another one-off measure in three or four years' time? If that happens, will we not permanently change the scheme of electoral reform, and does that not put us in danger of undermining legislation? That is one of the crucial problems with the Bill.

Lembit �pik: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that it would help if the Minister gave a categorical assurance that the Government will not use the Bill as a precedent for the future? The danger is that electors in Northern Ireland will think that there is no need to register early, because they can do it at the last minute.

David Trimble: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The crucial issue is whether there will be a change of policy. Is this a one-off or are we setting a precedent? He asks the Minister to give an undertaking. I hope he does because if he fails to do so, the amicable nature of our proceedings might change.

Martin Smyth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people in Northern Ireland are used to annual re-enactments of non-permanent legislation, and we do not want that to be repeated?

David Trimble: When my hon. Friend said annual re-enactments, another thing popped into my mind, but he then made it clear that he was talking about legislation and some of the unfortunate ways in which it is handled. I am happy to agree entirely with him.
	The central point is whether we are maintaining the policy of the 2002 Act. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to the request by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. But even if such a positive response is given, if we do not address the underlying causes there is the danger that in two or three years another Minister will say that we must deal with the changes that have come about as a result of continuing falls. We must find some way of tackling the underlying cause and encouraging people to register. It is a trite point to make, but if politics in Northern Ireland were more successful, and more effectively addressed the whole range of people's interests rather than just constitutional and security matters, and if the whole range of economic issues and activities and parties were available to the people of Northern Ireland, we might see a great change. To that extent, it is important that the issues on which I am sure the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and others would agree with me are progressed.
	As the Minister knows, I intend to say something about the need for safeguards. That is a matter that we will discuss again, but it is appropriate to advert to it at this point. In response to interventions earlier, when hon. Members were worried about the Bill leading to people being on the register who should not be on it, the Minister referred to the identifiers as safeguards. Each time he spoke about safeguards, he returned to the photo ID as the key onebut people can gain access to insurance numbers, and signatures can be forged. The Minister's sheet-anchor in his response to earlier interventions was photographic ID.
	I understand the point that the Minister makes, and the fact that we have such identifiers is hugely important. Without them, our approach to the principle of the Bill would not be the same, but photographic ID is relevant only for those who are physically present at the polling station. It is not relevant to proxy voting and absent voting. The abuse that was taking place on such a large scale by paramilitary-related parties involved proxy and absent voting in particular. It was no longer the old-fashioned impersonation by people who turned up at the polling station and then allegedly went to a caravan where they changed clothes, hats and what not, and came back to vote again, or the sort of circumstances that led Sinn Fein in Foyle to hold a competition, or at least award a prize, to the person who cast the largest number of votes in an election. I dare say the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who is a native of the maiden city, will tell us that on one occasion that prize was won by a person who was subsequently elected herself to a particular placebut that is another matter.
	I was about to say that that was in the good old days, but I correct myselfthat was in the old days. In modern times the abuse occurs through proxy voting and absent voting. That is why safeguards are hugely important. To take the point a little further, I said that in the past in Northern Ireland, personation was an informal form of proxy voting. To a certain extent an improperly cast vote is organised in families. We have spoken about the intimidation that may take place, but improper voting may be organised in families, which means that information about national insurance numbers, for example, and even about signatures, may be readily available to people who want to ensure that a vote is cast improperly. The point that we will discuss later in the context of my new clauses is hugely important, but I shall reserve my further comments until then.
	As I said, we are generally well disposed to the Bill. We obviously want to see as many people on the register as should be there. We are concerned about the underlying problem that needs to be addressed. We are concerned that there should be no change in fundamental policy and that there should be safeguards, but we are content to pursue the matter in Committee, and we do not intend to divide the House on Second Reading.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Minister for the consultations between members of our party and himself and officials. As he knows, the issue has exercised our party considerably and is undoubtedly a major issue right across the Province, particularly in Protestant working-class areas where there is a greater than average fall in the number of people registering. That is of great concern across the Province in all communities. I express the appreciation and gratitude of our party for allowing us to make representations and also for the way in which he responded.
	By and large the Bill is a sensible measure. We welcome it and we will support it in its course through the House today. There are points of detail that need to be clarified and matters of concern that need to be dealt with, but as the debate has progressed some of those fears have been allayed already. As the Minister pointed out, the Bill brings the law in relation to the carry-over of registered electors into line with what happens in the rest of the country. As a matter of principle, there is no reason why we should oppose it.

Lady Hermon: There is one issue that must be addressed. I hope that the hon. Gentlemanand, certainly, the Ministerwill do so. The terms in which the Bill has been drafted will restore only those previously properly registered on the electoral register. That is fine, but there is a key duty on the chief electoral officer and all public authorities to promote equality of opportunity under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We have just heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) speak of the need for young people to be on the electoral register. They will be discriminated against by the effects of the Bill.

Nigel Dodds: When the Minister replies, I am sure that he will want to address that in terms of the legislation to which the hon. Lady referred. We are dealing with the 81,000-odd people who were previously on the register, who fulfilled all the requirements as to identifiers and so on, and who the chief electoral officer was satisfied met all the criteria under the anti-fraud measures. Those are the only people whom we can legitimately deal with. It would be a matter of grave concern if we tried to do anything else.
	The Bill is a sensible measure in line with the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It is right that we should try to increase the number of people registered from the current level of 85 per cent. and bring the figure closer to that in the rest of the country. I am particularly alarmed by the figure mentioned today with regard to young peoplethat is, 17-year-olds who are registering to vote when they turn 18, and 18-year-olds. As few as 25 per cent. of those people may be registering. That is a cause of grave concern. A number of reasons have been given. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the problem of student mobility and the time at which the canvass was carried outSeptember and Octoberwhen many young people may be embarking on courses of study in places other than where they live.
	We now have rolling registration, which some might say is allowing many more people to come on to the register at times other than when the annual canvass is done. I think that the figures will show that it is not taken up by as many as should be taking it up. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that not many people are aware of the ability to get on to the register at any time during the year. That raises a point that I want to deal with in a little whilethe resources that are given to the chief electoral officer and his proactive approach in searching out people and getting them on to the register, which is an important point.
	I agree that the current electoral register for Northern Ireland is much more accurate than previously, as a result of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, but I do not think that it is as comprehensive as it should be. We must acknowledge that. We all accept that the legislation that was passed in 2002, which was supported across the House, has made a significant difference. The Electoral Commission has reported on the significant and positive effect of the 2002 Act. There have been problems and we have raised them with the Minister and his Department over the past two years. There have been concerns about people getting access and getting hold of the electoral identity cards that they need to vote if they do not have a bus pass or other appropriate photographic evidence.
	I would be interested to hear from the Minister just what the latest position is in relation to electoral identity cards and what the current uptake is like. I know that things have improved. When I go around polling stations on election day, I find that many people use passports, driving licences, bus passes and so on. The electoral identity card is by no means the main or only means of identification. Nevertheless, it is significant, and we must therefore ensure that people are not only on the register, but provided with the wherewithal to vote on the day. The chief electoral officer needs to be given the resources and funding to be able to make it easy for people who are on the register to get electoral identity cards easily and quickly, and in areas that suit them, such as local libraries or community centres. I know that efforts are being made in that regard, but a lot more could be done.
	On the comprehensiveness of the register, there are 150,000 fewer people on it than there were two years ago. Other hon. Members referred to the fact that one would expect a drop in the first year of operation under the 2002 Act, because of the anti-fraud measures. Indeed, I have no doubt about the effects that the anti-fraud measures would have had if they had been in place prior to 2002. I think, for example, of a former colleague, William McCrea in Mid-Ulster. I have no doubt that, if the legislation had been in force at the time, William McCrea would have been returned, rather than Martin McGuinness, in the constituency of Mid-Ulster.
	Clearly, the electoral register needed to be cleaned and tidied up, but there is an issue as to why there has been such a massive drop in the first year, with 81,000 people not registering. Other hon. Members have alluded to various reasons and I shall not go through all of them. I have been out and about talking to people in recent months, calling at their doors and asking them about registration. There will always be people who do not want to be registeredit happens here and in Northern Ireland, and in every democratic country because, for various reasons, there are people who do not want to appear on the electoral registration listbut many people simply forget. People get a form through their door or somebody calls and gives them a form, but they put it to one side and forget, or they cannot be bothered to search out their national insurance number or whatever else. They might do it, but forget to get their son or daughter, or another member of the household, to do it. When people are asked about the matter and they realise that they are not on the electoral register, they are willing to get registered. On about 31 January, when the tax deadline comes up for return of income tax forms, we get a reminder in the national newspapers and are told that hundreds of thousands of people let that deadline go by every year. Even with the threat of a monetary penalty, hundreds of thousands of people still do not fill in the forms. There is an aversion to form-filling.
	That is why more resources need to be given to the electoral officer to get people to fill in and return the forms. The main reason why we have such a problem is that, because of lack of resources, not enough has been done by the electoral officer to advertise, get out there, make it easier for people to get the forms filled in and make it clear to them that they have to do it and what the procedures are. When an election is called, whether it is a local, general or Assembly election, people are aware that a vote is coming and canvassing starts. Everybody starts to ring our offices and contact party staff to say, I've just discovered that I'm not on the register. I want to get on to it, and I need to be on it.
	One possibilityI know that there are administrative difficulties and all the rest of itis to provide a longer period for people to register once an election is called. As with postal, proxy or absent votes, the time between the announcement of the election and the time to make an application is very limited. People do not get their applications in on time. The more time we can provide for people, the better. After all, this is a computerised age in which things can be done fairly quickly. We need safeguards and checking, and identification in terms of national insurance numbers and so on can be checked relatively easily. People should be given as much time as possible, especially in the period after an election is called. That is when they start seriously to think, Am I on the register and can I vote in this election? That would be positive in getting more people on to the register.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to see that new clause 1 attempts to extend the deadline in a similar way to the one that he suggests.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. We will debate the new clause in due course. I would welcome and support anything that gives people a greater opportunity to register.
	On the longer-term arrangements, we are dealing with a one-off, as the Minister said, although there could be another one-off next year. The Bill allows for another one-off extension allowing people who will be on this year's register to be carried forward to the 2006 register. It is to be hoped that, by that stage, longer-term arrangements will be in place. Clearly, it is important at this stage to say that there needs to be carry-over of electors from one year to the next. It simply makes no sense for everybody to have to start completely afresh every single year. That is bound to cause problems. Some people have suggested that the carry-over period should be one year, while others say it should be three years. I think that there should be some discussion and debate, but provided that the safeguards are in place in terms of national insurance identifiers, the signature requirements, photographic identity and so on, the problems that could previously have arisen in a long carry-over will not have the same weight. I urge the Minister to consider seriously, as part of the long-term arrangements that must be put in place, a longer carry-over period so that people will not be disfranchised unnecessarily as a result of carelessness or because they have not got round to registering at a time at which they might not be concentrating on elections. We should offer every opportunity to maximise the vote provided that safeguards are in place, as I believe that they are, thanks to the anti-fraud measures in the 2002 Act.

Gregory Campbell: I join other hon. Members in thanking the Minister for the consultation in which he and his colleagues engaged in the lead-up to the Bill.
	The Minister said at the outset that more than 80,000 voters who had been removed from the register because of their failure to return a registration form would be restored to it as a result of the Bill. We will have a new register on 1 April. The political parties receive electoral registers from the electoral officers through the normal process of events, so they are in receipt of the present register. They will receive a new register on 1 April, which will include the 80,000-plus additional names. Will the Minister indicate whether the political parties will get the additional names in a separate document in addition to the new register? I fully understand that we will receive the new register, but many political parties are building up towards the local government elections and want to know whether there will be a separate entity to detail the additional entries as well as the new register.
	I asked the Minister about the research that is required on those who do not return the forms. It is not in anyone's interests for the register to decline year on year, but that has been the case for the past three years. I and many others believe that a significant number of the 80,000 people whom we are discussing today are younger people, and several hon. Members have made that point. Research is critical to establish whether that is a fact. Many of us suggest that there is a small proportion of elderly and middle-aged people among the 80,000, but a significant number of people in the 18 to 25 age group. We need to establish whether that is true and then, if necessary, establish why it is the case.
	Setting aside the one-off basis of the Bill, the Minister must find better ongoing ways of getting young people to fill in electoral forms. We must collectively remove our heads from the sand. Younger people by and large do not rush home on a Thursday night to watch the politics show with Andrew Neil and two of our fellow hon. Members. They are just not interested[Interruption.] Some people might find that difficult to believe, but it is the case. Many things might be on young people's minds, but that politics show is not one of them. How do we encourage young people to get involved in politics and on to the electoral register?

Nigel Dodds: Change the cast.

Gregory Campbell: I shall come to that later.
	We could achieve such progress if the Minister was prepared to examine the wider distribution of electoral registration forms on an ongoing basis. For example, the only time that many young people find out that they are not on the electoral registerapart from at the time of an election, obviouslyis when they go to apply for credit in retail outlets for the purchase of a vehicle or other goods. Retail outlets, by and large, use the electoral register to establish the identity and address of a person seeking credit. If electoral registration forms were available at car showrooms and other retail outlets and people applying for credit were told that filling in the forms and subsequently being approved would allow them to get the credit that they wanted, it could be another way to motivate young people to register. Young people would not necessarily be registering for altruistic reasons, but they would get on to the electoral register. I hope that the Minister will consider ways in which we can get young people to fill in electoral registration forms.
	By and large, we are in favour of the Bill making progress, although we obviously wish to raise several issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) raised the question of security forces personnel earlier. I hope that the Minister will address that point because I know that the matter affects a small number of people in my constituency and the same situation might well exist in others. I understand that members of the security forces who had previously been registered but last year decided not to re-register because of security fears due to their location, will automatically be restored to the register under the Bill, despite the fact that they took a conscious decision not to register last year. What will happen to such people? Will they have to apply consciously to have their names removed from the register because they will otherwise be restored to it under the Bill?

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As a matter of interest, is he aware of whether any representations on that have been made to the chief electoral officer by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland?

Gregory Campbell: I am not aware of representations made by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, but I know that the situation applies to a small number of people. It might well be the case that the situation is more widespread than that throughout Northern Ireland, so I hope that the Minister will respond to the point.
	Let us consider the wider issue. First, we should try to ensure that we have a more representative and comprehensive electoral register, which is a laudable objective that we should support, and, as a consequence of that, we should ensure that we have higher turnouts in elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) alluded to the fact that there is low turnout, especially, but not exclusively, in Protestant working-class areas. In my constituency, as in others, there might well be a 60 per cent. turnout at an election, but the turnout in places in which there is a high proportion of younger people can be 25 to 30 per cent. In effect, there is a double whammy in that younger people do not register and those who do register do not come out to vote on the day of an election. I accept that that is a separate issue from the Bill, but I have no doubt that we will return to it.
	The Bill appears to have achieved a broad consensus among hon. Members who have spoken, although some have had reservations. That is welcome. That is the view of my party and all hon. Members who have spoken. It was thus strange that, when the Bill was considered in the other place earlier this week, Lord Maginnis of the Ulster Unionist party was scathing about the Bill and appeared to be utterly opposed to it. Perhaps other hon. Members will wish to qualify or expand on his comments.

John Spellar: With the permission of the House, I shall reply to the debate. In response to the last contribution, I would fear for the future of the country if young people were rushing home to watch the politics show rather than pursuing the normal healthy activities that they should be undertaking.
	I shall respond to some of the points that were made in the debate, although some will be taken up in Committee. If I do not touch on others, they will probably be covered in discussions with the political parties as we look to the future of registration. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and I stress that the Bill is not a precedent for further action. I think I made it quite clear that we see it as an interim operation to deal with a particular problem at a particular time. We fully accept that we have to address the underlying problems. By the way, on a slightly different point, the Department for Constitutional Affairs is looking at registration in the broader context across Great Britain.
	We need to look at the broader issues, such as many of the social changes that we have discussed today, which have led to lower levels of registration and participation, and we shall explore ways to improve that. In general, colleagues will have to take on board the need for greater data sharing between public and some private bodies, such as utility companies, and electoral registration officers, to provide a much wider range of information streams that will enable registration officers to produce a full and comprehensive register. I make that point merely as a preliminary remark, because I accept that there will need to be much wider discussions, but colleagues should be aware of the consequences of redressing the pattern, on which I think we are all agreed.
	That ties in with the question of education, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for North Down (Lady Hermon). I am increasingly convinced that many young people who have not voted at several elections fear that they will be embarrassed if they turn up at a polling station and ask what the procedure is, so yet again they do not vote. Such behaviour then becomes self-reinforcing. We need to look at that.
	Some hon. Members dealt with various issues, but did not necessarily address the way in which they interlock. We talked, for example, about the substantial number of young people who are not registered. Although they will not be affected by the Bill, they will be affected by the subsequent arrangements. The Bill is about re-registration; it is by no means a universal panacea. It is a remedy, not a solution. It will improve the register and make it more comprehensive, probably taking registration towards 90 per cent., but it will not take it to 100 per cent.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister take this opportunity to address the issue we raised about section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998? How does the Bill promote equality of opportunity between first-time younger voters and older voters who are already on the register?

John Spellar: It is in the public interest that the register should be as comprehensive as possible, so we are undertaking a number of measures, for example in colleges, to try to increase registration among younger people. In this instance, we are also trying to maintain the strength of the register. In all honesty, no one could argue that it is undesirable to continue to add to the register people who should be included on it. It is open to all to register, and we have to try to facilitate the process wherever we can. As I said, we recognise that the Bill is not a universal solution, but it goes a considerable way towards addressing the problem.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention on this important point. The Bill includes the imprint that it is compatible with the European convention on human rightsquite right, too; that is what we expect. The Minister will be well aware that under the convention the United Kingdom has an obligation to ensure free elections with no discrimination on any ground whatever. Can the Minister explain to the House how the Bill fulfils that obligation on this country?

John Spellar: That argument is slightly reminiscent of one that was advanced against me on antisocial behaviour orders, so I paraphrase the words of Mr. Justice Girvan: it is open to all to register. That is the discrimination argument. The public policy argument is that we should facilitate as far as possible the most comprehensive electoral register. The fact that we are unable to achieve 100 per cent. registration is not an argument against trying to improve the percentage from the mid 80s to the low 90s. That is exactly right and it is indeed the burden of the Bill.

David Trimble: The Minister says that he has dealt with the public policy argument and the discrimination argument. Perhaps he has. What he has not dealt with is the equality of opportunity argument, which is not that he should not undertake the measures in the Bill but that he should be taking equal measures to provide for those classes and individuals that the Bill does not cover. That is the point. Although he can point to some activity in reaching towards or identifying young people who were not previously registered, he will have some difficulty convincing the House that the measures that he is taking in that respect are equal to those he is taking in the Bill. He is not affording equality of opportunity in terms of section 75.

John Spellar: I should probably not have great difficulty in convincing the House, but I may have difficulty in convincing the right hon. Gentleman. I suspect that colleagues will find my arguments fairly convincing in terms of what we are doing to ensure greater participation in elections. As I outlined, we are already working with colleges, through the Department of Education. Indeed, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) outlined some of the improvements that have taken place, with regard to access to forums and so on. That is not yet sufficient and there is more to be done, but we need to hold discussions with the political parties on how we can further develop registration, precisely to address a number of the groups that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) described. Improving that situation will involve us in work on the greater disclosure of data to the electoral registration officer.
	On the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury on intimidation, the marked register shows only that a person attended a polling station. It does not indicate how they voted. In fact, a higher percentage of people in Northern Ireland vote by going to a polling station, which relates to the question about postal and proxy voting put by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, to which I shall return in due course. The number of people voting by post or proxy has gone down from 41,000 to 27,000, which may have narrowed the scope for possible abuse. However, the marked register merely says that a person has attended the polling station, not whether they actually cast a vote. That is perhaps like the Spanish referendum, where a considerable percentage of voters took the trouble to turn up, but did not record a vote.
	I take the compliment from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others on the consultation, and I pay tribute to the work undertaken by my officials with parties in this House and in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire mentioned the significant problem, which political parties have raised with me, of those who think that they are registered. For example, people who registered for last June's elections for the European Parliament needed to re-register in August and September under the current provisions. People find that difficult to comprehend, and it undermines the procedure. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann about registration in August and September, which we must address when we examine the future pattern of registration and decide whether we should move towards a system of continuous registration.
	In Britain, it is common for students who come from Surrey and who study in Edinburgh to be registered in two different places, whereas people in Northern Ireland must undertake individual registration. A disparity exists, and we are examining how to tackle it in future.
	We shall examine the question of safeguards in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North rightly identified under-registration as a problem that has generated concern across the communities in Northern Ireland. That is an important point to stress.
	About 100,000 identity cards have been issued. The elections in June saw a considerable reduction in the number of people who, for one reason or another, were unable to vote, and some such people were able to return to the polling stations later. There will be a further campaign to take the facilities around in order to maximise the number of people who have the necessary identity card.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised his concerns about registration once an election is called, and we will deal with that issue when we discuss his amendment in Committee. One way to deal with those concerns would be to introduce UK-wide legislation concerning the relationship between the electoral register, the announcement of the election and the date of the election. Beyond that, I shall refer to a straightforward practical matter that reflects concerns expressed in this debate: if the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland receives a considerable tide of applications in addition to all the other work that it must do before an election, the scope for dubious applications to slip through might be increased, and we must bear that point in mind in striking that balance.
	On security personnel, we recognise that members of Her Majesty's armed forces can register at their base for electoral purposes and that that provision does not apply to the police service or, as far as I can recall, to the Prison Service, which is a significant point in particular constituencies, and we must address it.
	We must examine the additional list in order to identify more readily those who will be coming on to the register, and I will write to the hon. Member for Belfast, North tomorrow or early next week on that matter.

Nigel Dodds: On the ability of security force personnel to vote, in election after election the issue arises that members of the police service and the Royal Irish Regiment who have registered to vote and who want to vote, but who are on duty at a polling station other than the one at which they are registered, are denied the opportunity to register their vote. That issue comes up at every election. Representations are made, but the problems still occur. As we approach council and other elections, will the Minister undertake to ensure that that issue will not arise again in Northern Ireland?

John Spellar: They may be eligible for a postal vote on the grounds of undertaking that duty, and I undertake to take the matter up with the chief electoral officer.

David Trimble: To reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), this is a serious problem, and it may be necessary to go beyond the electoral officer. It could be solved by postal voting, but because of the nature of these services and the attitude of those who direct them, policemen and those in the Royal Irish Regiment are not being facilitated in that. That cannot be solved by the chief electoral officer, and the Minister should direct his inquiries to the police and the RIR.

John Spellar: I certainly undertake to consider that matter within a time scale that will enable action to be taken.
	I think I have dealt with most of the issues that were raised. I am sure that I have missed some, but we will be able to discuss them at a later stage. I am pleased with the positive way in which the debate has proceeded, which indicates that we are addressing a genuine problem. Of course there will be individual concerns, but I think that the broad thrust of the Bill is accepted. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Bill immediately considered in Committee.
	[Mr. Michael Lord in the Chair]

Clause 1
	  
	Restoration to Electoral Register of Names Previously Removed

Lembit �pik: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 18, leave out from 'Officer' to end of line 19 and insert
	'shall conduct an additional canvass in respect of such former electors.'.

Michael Lord: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 20, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert
	'(2)   The power conferred by subsection (1) may only be exercised before 18th March 2005.'.
	New clause 1Rolling registration
	'(1)   For the purposes of this Act, the last day for an elector to register under the rolling registration process shall be the day on which nominations for election close.
	(2)   An updated register shall be published no later than one week after the relevant date in subsection (1).'.
	Amendment No. 4, in title, line 1, leave out
	'in cases where required information is not provided'.

Lembit �pik: I wish to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
	The Second Reading debate covered in fairly extensive detail the reservations that several of us have about the Bill as it stands. As our amendments and the subsequent amendments correspond to the discussions that we have already had, I do not intend to rehearse the broader issues but instead to focus specifically on the purpose of the amendments in order to seek a response from the Minister.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would allow the chief electoral officer to carry out an additional canvass of the 81,000 people who were on the register in 2003 and did not re-register during the autumn canvass of 2004. The canvass would have to be completed by 18 March to allow time for an updated register to be produced for 1 April. That would concentrate the effort of encouraging people to register and get on to the list in time to vote. It would also achieve the benefit of the direct contact that we discussed before. We would hope to see a very vigorous campaign by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to achieve that, including sending individual canvassers to call at the homes of each of these electors to persuade them to complete and return their forms. In stipulating the date of 18 March for the process to be completed, we anticipate that the register could be updated and published on 1 April. I recognise that that represents a significant requirement in terms of human resources, but since it is a one-off situation the cost will not be repeated. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that this is not intended to set a precedent for the future.
	I turn to new clause 1 and amendment No. 4. We were informed by Northern Ireland Office officials that the last day for people to register through the rolling registration process for inclusion on the register on 1 April would be 10 March. The new clause would extend that date to the day on which nominations for this year's council elections close. We anticipate that by that stage, with election fever in the air and a general election in the offing, people would be more concerned about whether they are on the register and more enthusiastic about completing their forms.
	There would be an additional benefit in terms of the media, who will unquestionably be increasing their political coverage. I have seen some interesting projects to encourage voter participation. For example, in London, I recently did an interview with Virgin Radio, which is trying to increase public interest in matters that are discussed in Westminster. I am sure that that would have a more beneficial effect if the registration period were extended, as the new clause proposes.
	The new clause has perhaps the added benefit of attracting more young people to register to vote. The Bill's carry-over proposals would not do much to tackle the problem of increasing the number of young people on the register. As we have already discussed, that figure is worryingly lowapproximately 25 per cent. of those eligible to vote.
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and new clause 1 seek to provide a practical way of addressing some of the issues that we discussed on Second Reading. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Harry Barnes: I have some sympathy with new clause 1 on rolling registration, given my long-term interest in the subject. When the Representation of the People Act 2000 was introduced, the Minister responsible for piloting it through the House was kind enough to call me the father of the rolling register.
	In many ways, rolling registration is in its infancy. There is no reason why it should not be a much more rapid process. There should be many more arrangements in place to ensure that, when people move into areas, we have details of that and registration can be transferred almost immediately.
	I also have sympathy with the notion of moving back the date for final registration. There may be a small defect in the drafting because, although the Bill is a short-term measure, which can exist for two years at most, I have always been conscious that the register should cease to roll when an election is called. The dates for local government elections are known well in advance, but with parliamentary elections, there is a danger that if a by-election were held, people would move into an area to distort the result. That could still happen if registration were left until the time of nomination. The qualifying date should always be when an election is announced in the case of parliamentary elections.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister's point about the need to examine United Kingdom-wide provisions on rolling registration is important. Some Select Committees are examining electoral registration, and rolling registration is an important consideration in that. There is a point that we should consider even though it may be for the future. A good stimulator is not only the announcement of an election but immediate issuing of polling cards, which contain details of who is registered in a specific household. The polling card could state that, if the information were incorrect and people were missing, there would still be time to register, perhaps by, for example, the date of nomination. There is no reason why cards cannot be sent to homes where nobody is on the register, because some people in those homes might be entitled to register. There should be a late opportunity to do that.
	Publicityfrom the Northern Ireland Office in the context of the Bill and the Home Office on the mainlandcould be pumped up at a specific stage and state, Check now to see whether you're registered. Here is an opportunity, as long as you're qualified, to get on the register. I am therefore keen that development in that direction should be pursued. That does not mean that I go along with new clause 1, despite having such sympathy, as I see the faults and the need to engage in a United Kingdom-wide consideration of rolling registration.

Andrew MacKinlay: Part of the problem regarding the rolling register is that one can register at any time under it, but one must still do so by the so-called qualifying date of 15 October. What resident is deemed to be is not spelled out adequately by the electoral registration office. That is so throughout the United Kingdom but particularly in Northern Ireland with regard to the group to whom I referred earlierstudents who are away at university, often in Great Britain. They do not understand that they can be deemed to be resident in County Londonderry or wherever, even though they might be at university in Durham or Edinburgh in October.

Harry Barnes: The rolling register has moved us away from the 15 October qualifying date requirement. When people move their residence to new areas, they can now go on to what used to be called the supplementary lists. At one time, there was an arrangement whereby people could only get on to the published monthly supplementary lists by meeting the qualifying date of 15 October, or September, I believe, in Northern Ireland. That changed under the 2000 Act to allow the register to roll during that period. The problem with that is the number of monthly stages and the period that must be fulfilled before that occurs. I would like a more continuing rolling register and much more rapid provision in relation to people moving to different areas. Help is required, as the last thing on the mind of anyone who moves home is whether they are on the electoral registerunless they are politicians. People are alerted to the issue when an election takes place, and if they have missed out, they should still be able to qualify otherwise. We need an opportunity to meet that.

Nigel Dodds: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who contributes regularly on these issues and gives a lot of thought to them. I sympathise with much of what he said.
	As I indicated on Second Reading, I support giving people as much time as possible to register to vote. Clearly, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire said, people have these things brought to their attention as an election is called, when it becomes a matter of immediate concern. I therefore have a lot of sympathy with new clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), and with that type of approach, subject to safeguards. The Minister has indicated the concern about a flood of applications late in the run-up to polling day, as the electoral registration office still has a lot of other things to do. With adequate resources, however, that can be taken care of.
	We should, therefore, not necessarily in this Bill but as part of longer-term arrangements for the future, try to get as many people as possible on to the register, particularly young people. To do so, people should be given the opportunity to register to vote as late as possible, subject to all the caveats about fraud and so on. I am therefore generally sympathetic to that approach, and I think that it would meet with general support across the Province of Northern Ireland.

John Spellar: I am almost tempted down the path of a full discussion on the future of electoral registration in Northern Ireland, but I would probably not be so well thought of by the Whips Office if I did so.
	We are all going to have to consider many of the issues raised in the amendments, and think about their implications. One of the underlying issues is the extent to which notification of one bodythe Post Office, in the case of forwarding addresses, the national insurance authorities, the Inland Revenue or one of the utilities, for instancewill trigger notification of other relevant bodies. Today, however, is not the time to explore those issues in detail.
	Amendment No. 1 would fundamentally change the nature of the Bill by requiring the chief electoral officer to conduct a full canvass. It would militate against what some parties here have asked us forthe conveying of the information as quickly as possible. If we asked for a full canvass between now and 1 April, we would not be able to give those parties the information that they have rightly said they need in good time for the local elections in May. I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), but I must cast some doubt on the practicality of his proposal.
	Clause 1(2) provides that the names to be returned to the register must be reinstated by 1 April, but an earlier date would be possible. We are talking to the chief electoral officer about that. There is a degree of contradiction, and I accept that a trade-off is involvedas, I know, does the hon. Gentleman.
	I know of the long-standing interest of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in rolling registration. I only regret that he may no longer discuss that subject in the Chamber in future, although I suspect that he will take an unhealthy interest in it outside the House. He has put a great deal of work into it over the years, and I think his views and his advice would be welcome.
	Amendment No. 4 is consequential on the others.
	I hope I have explained some of the reasons for our belief that the amendments are contrary not just to the Bill, but to some of the issues that have been raised today. I would ask the Committee to reject them if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire did not feel free to withdraw amendment No. 1.

Lembit �pik: Let me record my sorrow at the potential moving onnot passing on!of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). It does, of course, leave the way open for him to become the regular rolling register commentator on The Daily Politics, should Andrew Neil be looking for such a contributor.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) for his comments, which were consistent with what he said on Second Reading.
	I hear what the Minister says, and he is right: amendment No. 1 does change the nature of the Bill. That, however, is why I tabled it. I want the nature of the Bill to be changed in that way. The Minister also hears what I say, and we must agree to differ, but I think this would be practicable if resources were made available.
	The Minister is also right about the slight contradiction between amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and new clause 1, but they were grouped together for the purposes of the debate. As I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, I am grateful for the view that he has expressed.
	I say that I will not press the amendment to a Division, but the Minister's aggressive command to the House to reject my well crafted and thoughtful amendments almost prompts me to do so. But as we live in a country that appears to have been brought to a standstill by 2 cm of snow, it might be a bit unreasonable to expect colleagues to return from the four corners of the country simply in order for me to make that point. I am grateful to the Minister for his response; I am not completely satisfied with it, but sufficiently so to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
	  
	Duration of Act

Lembit �pik: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
	The amendment, which was tabled by myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), relates to a matter that we dealt with on Second Reading. We discussed earlier the grim and inexorable temptation that exists in Northern Ireland politics to turn temporary orders into recurring annual events. Indeed, one tends to get the feeling that legislation relating to the north of Ireland has become something of a shanty town of exceptions, which, over time, get renewed and become the norm. For reasons that we have already discussed, I am keen to prevent this legislation from becoming another hut in that legislative shanty town.
	The amendment removes from the Bill the Secretary of State's power to make an order allowing the chief electoral officer to carry over electors from, say, the October 2005 canvass for another year. Such a power is unacceptable. If the Bill is to be a one-off, it really should be a one-off. If further future problems are thought to occur with the electoral registration process, the Minister must come before the House with properly prepared legislation and give us the courtesy of allowing time to discuss it fully and carefully. We should also be given the opportunity to table amendments, rather than the order being hastily pushed through. That is the purpose of the amendment.
	The Minister has assured us that he does not intend the legislation to set a precedent, so I would be at a loss to understand why he would refuse to accept the amendment. In anticipating his agreeing to it, I look forward to hearing his comments.

David Trimble: I support the amendment, which relates to matters that we discussed on Second Reading and to concerns about a change of policy. The Minister said that he does not intend a change of policy and that this provision is a one-off, but as I said on Second Reading, if the underlying problems are not tackled, in a year or two's time strong arguments for yet another one-off will be advanced to whoever is then discharging the ministerial function.
	The Bill as drafted gives the Minister, the Electoral Commission and the system in general until the end of 2006 or 2007 to tackle the underlying problem, whereas the amendment would give them a shorter period. I understand why the Minister wants more time, but the more this system is allowed, the more it will take. There will be drift, instead of the vigorous approach that should be taken.
	The amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats in the other place puts the Minister and others under much firmer discipline and requires them to get stuck into the problem, which is wholly desirable. The amendment would compel the Minister to tackle the underlying problem with greater urgency, which is precisely what he should want to do. He should not come to the Dispatch Box to ask for a power to spin things out for another year; rather, he should be anxious and eager to get to grips with the problem in the course of this year.

John Spellar: Discussions about electoral registration and voting systems are, understandably among politicians, the subject of great controversy and concern. They are also a matter of considerable complexity. Our debate today has shown the consequencessometimes unintended consequencesof changes to systems and how they work out in practice. We also need to be aware of the interconnections and interrelations between the different aspects of the problem.
	I certainly want to move on, but I anticipate further quite lengthy and detailed discussions with the political parties and other interest groups, not least because of parallel work being undertaken by the Department for Constitutional Affairs on registration in Great Britain. I view the process as drawing up the initial work, going out to consultation, dealing with its results and then legislating, which I suspect means that we may be pressed for time. We may be able to achieve it all within the time scale envisaged in the amendment, but equally we may not. If not, it will not be the result of any lack of will, but a reflection of the nature of the process.
	It would be unfortunate if we had to go through another full round of legislation in order to achieve the objectives. There are limits and this is not an open-ended piece of legislation. It is predicated on the one-year extension and it provides the facility for a second year, should it be necessary. I hope that we can work it all out through the one year, but failure to do so would not, as I said, reflect any lack of will. We need to recognise the considerable complexities in the process, so I urge the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) to withdraw the amendment.

Lembit �pik: A phrase from my time in industry springs to mind: It is never too late to procrastinate. I am worried because the tone of the Minister's response suggests that he is seeking latitude to procrastinate on a very important matter. In his concluding comments, he considered the possibility of re-enacting the provisions for further periods of time, and I have to say that I find that frustrating.

John Spellar: What I said should not necessarily have led the hon. Gentleman to draw that conclusion. I merely drew attention to the provisions for a one-year extension and the ability to include another year, if necessary, and suggested that the Bill was limited to those circumstances. I thought that I had explained that further primary legislation would be required only if those provisions were not realised.

Lembit �pik: I am glad that the Minister has sought to clarify the position. I know that tomorrow morning, 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland will tune into the internet and read the proceedings of our debate. From what the Minister said earlier, they would deduce that they could relax, as there would be further opportunities to procrastinate in the filling in of forms. The Minister's intervention did not reveal any visceral determination to avoid finding ourselves again criticising the Government for having allowed this modification of the law to slip through and then be used indefinitely, as has happened so many times in Northern Ireland politics in the past.
	I shall not seek to divide the Committee on the amendment, but others may wish to. In anticipation of a nail-biting climax, I refer the Minister to a saying of my father's: sooner or later, even the best strategy must degenerate into action.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2
	  
	Absent and Proxy Votes

'A person whose name is re-registered by virtue of section 1 of this Act or whose name is carried forward by virtue of subsection 7B of section 10 of the 1983 Act is not entitled to an absent or proxy vote while his name is so re-registered or carried forward by virtue of this Act.'. [Mr. Trimble.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The purpose of new clause 2 is simple and we touched on it earlier. We do not know who the 80,000-plus people who have dropped off the register are. Many of them probably did not realise that they had to return the form. Most people probably fall into that category because they are not accustomed to having to register every year and expected that, as in the past, names would be carried forward. It is likely that people did not notice, or did not care about, the form that dropped through the letterbox and did not return it in time. Most of the 80,000 are probably in that category, but some may have moved away, and some are no longer with us.
	There is concern about putting people back on the register, particularly when the explanatory memorandum says on page 3:
	The purpose of clause 2  . . . is to enable
	chief electoral officers
	to carry forward the names of electors registered in the register in cases where those electors have failed to submit an annual canvass form or have submitted a form which does not include all the personal identifiers.
	If people are put back on the register when they have returned the form without including all the personal identifiers, one starts to feel uneasy and to look for safeguards.
	On Second Reading, the Minister offered reassurance when concern was expressed about the Bill opening the door to electoral abuse, and he referred to the existing identifiers. They included signatures, which can be forged, national insurance numbers, which can be obtained in various ways, and photographic identity, which will not be available for applications for proxy and absent voters. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that people who are reinstated on the register under the Bill will have to vote in person at the polling station and produce

Gregory Campbell: If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the majority of the 80,000 people who are not on the register were entitled to be on it 12 months ago, would the new clause preclude them in their entirety from applying for a postal or proxy vote, even though many of them may have a legitimate reason for not being able to vote in person?

David Trimble: The electoral reform legislation has introduced a number of safeguards to avoid abuse. It is known that when abuse has occurred it has involved absent and proxy voting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that, and I am sure that he would be anxious to ensure that safeguards existed and were operated. We are dealing with people who have had the opportunity to put themselves on the register, but have failed to do so. The Bill will give them a second chance, so it is reasonable for us to say that we want to ensure that the full range of safeguards in the 2002 Act will operate in that instance, including the need to have, and to produce on voting, the photographic identity card.
	The new clause will not deleteriously affect large numbers of people. As I said earlier, the probability is that most of the 80,000 people in question are still resident at their original address, and the Bill will facilitate their registration. It is true that the Bill departs from the basic principles of the 2002 Act, and that is why it is reasonable to try to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place. The new clause would do that, and I therefore hope that the Minister will take it seriously and decide to accept it.

Lembit �pik: I have much sympathy with the new clause, for the reasons outlined by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The touchstone is the need for risk management. However, the inference is that we are more concerned about the 80,000 or so people and their bona fide right to be on the register than about those already on the register. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) rightly pointed out that the new clause would take away a right from those already on the register, but I wonder whether the Minister agrees that the greatest single risk of abuse is in absent or proxy votes. Therefore, with the aim of minimising the risk of electoral fraud, it might be reasonable on this specific occasion to curtail the right to an absent or proxy vote for this specific category of voters, even if that makes it more difficult for them to vote.

David Lidington: I, too, have considerable sympathy with the new clause. The Bill says to those who declined to exercise their responsibility under the law to re-register annually that we will, in the interests of the health of our democracy in Northern Ireland, allow themfor the next year or two yearsto be restored to the register and enjoy their full democratic rights accordingly. Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), I wonder whether allowing postal or proxy votes to that category of elector without any check would tilt the balance of risk in the wrong direction. I therefore support the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Nigel Dodds: The new clause would have the effectwhether intentionally or as a by-product of the wording, I do not knowof removing those among the 81,000 to be carried forward who are on the permanent list of absent voters. It would deny them the right to be on that list, and therefore it would effectively disfranchise them. That could include elderly people, disabled people and those on the list for other reasons.
	Had the new clause said that people would not be able to apply for an absent or proxy vote, it would have affected people who were not on the permanent list, and then that would be the issue. However, effectively, the new clause would deny people who are already on the permanent list the right to a postal vote, which would clearly be unfair. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) intended that effect, but the wording certainly has that effect. Therefore, it would be unwise to press the new clause. It would have a detrimental effect on disabled or elderly people.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those people who have, on their own initiative, applied for an absent vote in the past will probably have applied by now for the right to vote? So while what the hon. Gentleman says sounds technically correct, the risk is minimised by the fact that the individuals with the absent vote will have shown the initiative to fill in the forms on the previous occasion.

Nigel Dodds: No, I do not accept that. There are people in Northern Ireland who are on the electoral register and the permanent list of absent voters. The effect of the new clause would be to say that, yes, people can be on the electoral register, but they will not be able to have an absent votenot that they cannot apply for one, but that they cannot have an absent vote at alleven though they are on the permanent list. That should not be the case.

David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and we may need some guidance from the Minister and others as to the position. We are dealing with people who were on the register, did not return their registration form and consequently ceased to be on the register. It may no longer be accurate to describe them as being on the permanent list of absent voters. I do not know whether the situation that the hon. Gentleman has in mind will arise. It is something on which we need advice. If it will, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised it. It is still open to the Committee to take manuscript amendments in the course of these proceedings so if we have the appropriate advice from the Minister or those who may send missives to the Minister, we can certainly deal with the problem.

Nigel Dodds: What the right hon. Gentleman has said carries some weight. When we hear what the Minister has to say in response, we can consider better how to take the matter forward.

David Lidington: I understand the important argument that the hon. Gentleman has put. It is surely also the case that if the new clause was accepted, the Bill would have to go back to the House of Lords for consideration of Commons amendments, and any technical further amendment that the Government wished to make could be considered there.

Nigel Dodds: That is absolutely right. Having made all these points, we await with even keener interest than otherwise what the Minister has to say.

John Spellar: I am advised that, since falling off the register last year, those people will no longer be on the permanent list of absent voters. I recognise that that might create a further anomaly, with the reinstatement of the register. Those people may presume that they do have a vote, and we do not want to deny them that.
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me to consider the matter seriously, and I have done so. I can see the arguments and the difficulties to which he referred. Against that, I have had to balance whether the new clause would create two classes of electorthose who are entitled to an absent or proxy vote and those who are not. I then went back to the more basic principles. The chief electoral officer already has the personal identifiers of those who will be back on the register as a result of the Bill, because they will not have been on the register previously. My understanding is that he will check in some detail any applications for absent or proxy votes that arise from any of those 81,000 individuals.
	If, for example, the chief electoral officer discovers that one of the three personal identifiers from the applicant does not match, or that the application comes from a person who is no longer living at his or her registered addressthat is important as wellthe application will be disallowed, because under the current legislation the chief electoral officer has to be satisfied that any such application is correct before issuing an absent or proxy vote. So, quite apart from the previously mentioned safeguards with regard to other aspects of voting, the fact that he will not be issuing a postal vote to someone who is not resident at the address is a significant further safeguard, which I hope may satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

David Trimble: I thank the Minister and I want to repeat the point just to make sure that I have understood. He is saying that if an application comes in for an absent or a proxy vote, and on checking the application it is clear that the applicant is not living at the address on the register, no proxy or absent vote will be issued. Am I correct?

John Spellar: For those who are within the 81,000, yes. That is my understanding from the chief electoral officer, so I hope that that would satisfy some of the difficulties that have been identified.

David Trimble: The Minister says that that is his understanding, and by that I take it he means that this is the policy that the chief electoral officer will follow.

John Spellar: indicated assent.

David Trimble: If that policy is followed, it will achieve the same effect as the new clause, which is a considerable reassurance to me, but the Minister must now consider the point consequential on the discussion a few moments ago. I am now bound to think that the advice that he has received confirms what I thought might be the casethat if persons who had been on the permanent list did not re-register they would not automatically be resumed to the permanent list, and I am not quite sure what is the best thing to do in this situation. Obviously, one wants to facilitate people. How that can be achieved I am not sure, because this may be a matter of legislation and the Minister may not now have the time in which to add a necessary amendment to his Bill, but I am afraid I shall leave it to him. In view of the points raised, there is a matter here that should be looked at sympathetically, but it is not clear to me at the moment how that can be done. In any case, that is a side issue.
	I thank the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for their support for the new clause, but in view of the assurances that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Order for Third Reading read.

John Spellar: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have had a useful, interesting and constructive debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) for withdrawing the last motion, but I shall consider the administrative consequences, as well as the issues raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). It may not be necessary to deal with some of those issues in legislation. It may be possible, at the very least, to write to those people who previously had permanent postal votes to get them reinstated. I will certainly have urgent discussions with the chief electoral officer about undertaking that. In many ways, that demonstrates the spirit in which the debate has taken place.
	There has been a general recognition of the concern about under-registration and an understanding of the possible pitfalls and dangers, and I hope that we have indicated that we have been alert to them. We have tried not only to mitigate any danger, but to maximise participation in the electoral process. I have also been much encouraged by the contributions from Members on both sides of the House on looking at practical ways in which that can be achieved.
	I recognise that this is a staging post in the process. The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 was a significant improvement in the legislation to deal with not just perceived, but clear abuses of the system. That has enabled the system to be considerably improved, but all changes may bring consequences in their wake and we have talked about some of those. As I readily identified, this is an interim measure designed to ensure that the register is more comprehensive, but we fully acknowledge that there are further improvements to be made, so I take note of the point made by hon. Members that we should try to undertake this process as quickly as possible. We need to consider a more long-standing procedure to deal with registration.

Andrew MacKinlay: When the Minister has his ongoing conversations with the electoral registration officer for Northern Ireland, will he undertake to explore whether there is parity of treatment on the narrow issue of what constitutes residence? I have reason to believe that the electoral registration officer in Northern Ireland is putting a very narrow interpretation on that and one that electoral registration officers in Dudley and Bromley, for example, would take a different view on. There needs to be parity of treatment throughout the United Kingdom on what constitutes residence, particularly in relation to people who could claim to be legitimately on the electoral register of north Belfast and of Edinburgh at the same time.

John Spellar: I take my hon. Friend's point, although I am not sure what they do in Dudley. I am more interested in Sandwellall sorts of strange things probably go on in Dudley. He must understand that this process is taking place in parallel with an examination of electoral registration by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. We will obviously seek to be guided by that and by broader international experience. Having said that, I am mindful of hon. Members' co-operation and the weathernot to mention the arrival of my colleague the Minister for Work. As a result, I thank the House and urge it to approve the Bill on Third Reading.

David Lidington: This has been a good debate and I place on the record my appreciation of the constructive way in which the Minister listened to the various points that have been made during our proceedings and gave reassurances that people have rightly sought that the Bill will not lead to any undermining of the measures taken against fraud through the 2002 Act.
	At one stage, when I was listening to two such formidable lawyers as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) engaging in a courteous disagreement over the detailed content of the Bill, it was like being back as a university student. However, our proceedings this afternoon have been characterised by an understanding that the Bill attempts to address a real wrong and a flaw in our democratic arrangements in Northern Ireland while preserving those safeguards against fraud that are vital to the health of our democracy.
	I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need for progress on the Government's proposals for a more permanent system of electoral registration to be not only swift, but transparent. We do not want to be in a position again in which Members of whatever party are put under undue pressure to agree to something without sufficient time to consult either outside the House or other Members within Parliament about the likely consequences of the measures on which we are being asked to take decisions. Some lessons could be usefully learned from our experience in dealing with the Bill. I hope that it delivers the successful outcome that the Minister intends.

Lembit �pik: It is a shame that the Minister for Work came in so late because, at the risk of engendering some jealousy in her, I want to congratulate her colleague, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who has been a parliamentary titan of debate, setting out a high watermark for inclusive and constructive discussion for his colleagues to follow. She missed it all.
	The debate showed three things. First, the high standard of debate that can occur when the Government proactively consult and operate their legislative processes in an inclusive fashion. I said in the debate on allocation of time that my great frustration is the failure of the Northern Ireland Office to do that. Today we saw the rewards of what happens when it does. I enjoyed the interaction between the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). In effect, they did the Minister's job for him. As such, I am sure he will consider providing them with an honorarium from his ministerial salary.
	Secondly, we learned that when we are not shoehorned into an artificially restrictive programme motion with guillotines, we conduct ourselves maturely and concisely, and we will finish almost one and a half hours ahead of schedule. The Government should take serious note of the fact that programme motions sometimes act as a provocation to extend debate and reduce the value of their contents. Once again, I hope that this is a precedent for future debates within the Northern Ireland portfolio and elsewhere.
	Thirdly, we learned that Opposition Members share concerns about the danger of the Bill becoming a law that is renewed annually. There is no benefit to the Government in regarding the passing of the Bill as a precedent that they can fall back on. The Minister assured us that he does not regard it as a precedent. I sincerely hope that he and others who may discuss the subject will heed those words and not force us into reconsidering the measure. Although we have acceded to the Government's wish to accept the Bill, it should not be taken as an automatic green light for expecting the same co-operation if they do not use the period that they have been granted to solve the problems permanently.
	It has been a pleasure to participate in the debate with the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members. On reflection, I am sure he will agree, as he looks at Members on the Opposition Benches and considers our contributions, that he is lucky to have us.

Nigel Dodds: Yes, this has been a constructive debate. We appreciate the way in which the Minister approached the debate and previous consultations leading up to it. This is a good day for democracy in Northern Ireland and the Bill is a positive move. The Minister has dealt with some of the points raised and allayed some concerns.
	Reading clause 1 again, it struck me that we have acted on the assumption that, once the Bill is enacted, the chief electoral officer will immediately get to work ensuring that the 81,000 people are carried forward on to the new register. However, as the explanatory notes state, the Bill gives the electoral officer the power, not the duty, to do so. My concern was reinforced by the fact that clause 1 states that
	the Chief Electoral Officer may enter
	their names. Having gone through the process of passing the Bill, I hope there is no question of the chief electoral officer saying, I know I have the power and I may do that, but I am disinclined to proceed along that route. The clear will of Parliament has been expressed, and I hope we will see those 81,000 people being able to vote in the forthcoming elections.

David Trimble: Like other Members, I express my appreciation to the Minister and others for the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) referred earlier to the 1.5 million people who will log on to the internet in Northern Ireland tomorrow morning to read the debate. It was a nice fancy, but is it not a pity that it will not happen?
	Is it not a pity that very few people outside the Chamber will be aware of today's debate and the manner in which it was conducted? It would do an awful lot to improve the standing of Parliament in the eyes of the public, were they aware of that. It is a good thing that we have the internet and the one channel that takes a continuous feed from the House so that people can log on or switch on to that. It helps to some extent to counterbalance the conspicuous absences from the Press Gallery. Let me express appreciation to the persons who are in the Press Gallery and draw attention to the absences.
	Having reflected on the quality of the debate, I echo the point that has been made. We have taken just over three hours to deal with the substance of the Bill. It has been dealt with expeditiously and with no attempt to prolong the proceedings. That underlines the point that programmes are not necessary and are in some respects counter-productive. The Committee stage went according to the timing allowed. A number of mini-debates were provided for by the selection of amendments. Some of them were quick and some took longer, because they needed to take longer as points arose. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) mentioned such a point, and it is a serious one. The Minister will try to address it through administrative action.
	Had there been a programme for the Committee stage, those drawing it up would have had no way of anticipating which amendments needed time and which did not. For that reason, particularly for Committee, programmes are wholly inappropriate. I have had the pleasure of serving on quite a few Committees, more in the early and mid-1990s than recently, and I was never conscious in Committee that members were deliberately wasting time. There was the odd bit of self-indulgence and there was a little badinage around the Chamber today, but it did not waste time. The Whips may want to think again about programming. I express appreciation to the Whip for the fact that the programme motion was not as restrictive as such motions have been on other occasions.
	I shall make two further points by way of conclusion. I thank the Minister for the assurance that he gave me with regard to safeguards on applications for proxy and absent votes. That is helpful and I am glad that there has been progress in that respect.
	I shall end, if I may, on a slightly different note. The way in which things have been done means that we have different classes of votersthose who have applied, those who have been rescued by special legislative means and others who have still not been included, in respect of whom the Minister has an obligation to ensure that equal efforts are made to provide the opportunity to be on the register. I, too, was uneasy about his reply in that regard, which made it sound as though the matter is not going to be treated with the urgency that it deserves. Having had a good day here, let us hope that that emboldens the Minister to get stuck into the problems that he knows he still has to deal with.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

European Agency for Safety and Health at   Work

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 9050/04, Commission Communication on the evaluation of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work accompanied by a draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2062/94 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; supports the Government's position that Article 308 of the Treaty on European Union is acceptable as the legal basis for the proposed amended Regulation; and agrees that the Government should signal political agreement to the proposed amended Regulation at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 3rd March 2005.[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

Return to Work

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Vernon Coaker.]

Sue Doughty: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue this evening. It arises from the problems encountered by my constituent, Dominic Ponsillo, whose parents have come here tonight to listen to this debate because they feel it is so important.
	Dominic Ponsillo is a former Royal Mail employee. He sorted mail, and I understand that he was one of the best and fastest there. In January 2003, he suffered a severe illness: chronic epididymo-orchitis, from which recovery is slow, normally taking a number of months, if not years. The illness renders the patient tired with repeated testicular pain. He was a good employee and wanted to return to his job. When I spoke to his doctor today, the doctor welcomed the fact that he was seeing someone who really wanted to get back to work, whereas people so often come in for a certificate so that they do not have to go back. The doctor said that Mr. Ponsillo's return to work needed to be gradual, at a pace that would not adversely affect him. In the event, the difference of understanding between the doctor, who was expecting a gradual return, and the employer, the Post Office, which had a rigid procedure, led to a complete breakdown of relations between employer and employee, and culminated in him losing his jobunnecessarily, in my opinion.
	The issue that I want to cover this evening is how to manage the return to work of an employee after an illness in a way that is not only seen to be helpful to the employee in terms of his return to full health, but recognises the situation in which the employer is placed. Although the case that I am raising relates to the physical illness of my constituent, it is also of interest in respect of any case of prolonged illness, physical or psychiatric, where the employee may at first be unable to undertake the hours and workload that their job normally entails. It is also of interest given that the Government are seeking to encourage more people to return to work after lengthy illness.
	From this case, it is clear that the employer had one set of expectations, and the medical staff another. Indeed, at certain points, it was not entirely clear whether my constituent was on sick leave in the eyes of the Post Office. These points are important in large organisations such as the Post Office, which have been trying to reduce absenteeism and sick leave, but incorrect understanding of the situation may mean that time not worked during the rehabilitation period may be recorded and count towards future disciplinary action. It is also clear that the medical advice provided in this case just did not fit Post Office procedures.
	The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who is here this evening and who employs my constituent's father, is a friend of the family and has worked on the case with me. We found that there was a clear difference between the standard practices of the employer and those asked for by the doctor, with, indeed, the support of the occupational physician, who was acting for the Post Office. The Post Office's employment rules said one thing, while the medical officer representing the Post Office and the GP representing my constituent were both in agreement about a different set of procedures.
	We have tried to reach an amicable resolution with the Post Office and have given it months of opportunity to answer questions about what the procedures should be. On 6 Decemberwe are now in Februarywe received a letter saying that it would outline the procedures so that we could fully understand them. However, we are yet to receive a further letter.
	Mr. Ponsillo was taken ill in January 2003. In August 2003, his doctor judged him to be 85 per cent. better and signed certificates to allow him a graded return to work. The medical expectation was that the patient was officially off sick, but could, if he felt up to it, return to work for up to the number of hours stated on the certificate. Dr. Arnold, Mr. Ponsillo's general practitioner, believed that the certificate was a legally binding document and thus that it was not for the employer to interpret or disregard what was written. A letter that Dr. Arnold wrote to the senior appeals manager of Royal Mail service delivery when Mr. Ponsillo appealed against dismissalhe eventually lost his jobstated:
	I know Mr Ponsillo has had considerable opposition from his manager  . . . I did not hesitate in suggesting to him that he sought legal representation for unfair treatment.
	Confirmation of that approach was provided in a letter from an occupational health officer for the Post Office, Dr. Guess, who confirmed the need for a gradual return to work. She said that she had made no statement that my constituent was fit for normal duties.
	Mr. Ponsillo's line manager went against medical instructions. After the initial six-week period of rehabilitation, the line manager should have ensured that the situation was reviewed, as per the instructions from both doctors. In fact, the occupational physician asked on 1 October for a report to be obtained from my constituent's doctor and to see Mr. Ponsillo in clinic. She subsequently noted in a memo that she made no comment to state that he was fit for normal duties. In response to a query from the line manager, she had advised that the period of rehabilitation was indeed prolonged, but that she would assess the case if requested and review his rehabilitation.
	In October, however, Mr. Ponsillo's manager sent him a note stating that he was to return to work full time and confirming that his rehabilitation period had expired. The note went on to say:
	as of the week commencing 6/10/2003 you are to report for your normal work hours.
	On 9 October, despite the information provided by both doctors, the manager required my constituent to return to full-time work and warned him in writing that an absence of more than one day would trigger stage 3 action. However, Mr. Ponsillo felt at that time that he was not able to do the hours expected. Indeed, he took two weeks of his holiday to try to speed up his recovery. After that time, there were regular disputes between him and management about the number of hours he was supposed to work and whether he was sick or on holiday. That was extremely confusing for someone who was qualified to work in a sorting office, but not well versed in the finer points of contract and dispute procedures. One of Mr. Ponsillo's supervisors then made the nature of my constituent's illness known to his colleagues, including the swelling of his testicles, so he had to endure the embarrassment of knowing what his work mates were saying.
	The situation got worse. Mr. Ponsillo became more and more stressed because he was worrying about how he would cope with doing more hours in his job than he could possibly manage. Sadly, owing to the stress that was caused, he swore at his manager and appeared threatening, so he was summarily dismissed. He appealed the case and although the doctors and both the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West and I made representations, the appeal was upheld, despite the fact that not all medical information was available for the appeal because it was claimed that it had been lost in the office. Losing information about the case seems to be part of the problem.
	Mr. Ponsillo did not pursue a case for unfair dismissal because he was advised that if a barrister examined the narrowness of the casethe threatening behaviour to his employerthe dismissal would be upheld. However, had he looked at the wider situation and the stress leading up to the dismissal, the outcome would have been different. Mr. Ponsillo had to make a decision at the time. He was offered a reference that did not say what had happened and decided to take that option, so he lost his job with no appeal.
	Had there been clearer guidelines that could have been understood by my constituent, his doctor and his employer, he would still be at work. His GP told me today that his behaviour had been completely out of character. Everybody I know who knows him says the same thing: it has never happened before.
	The Post Office uses a procedure known as the Newcastle process of rehabilitation, which has specific guidelines about the hours to be worked and the total number of weeks considered as rehabilitation. It is inflexible and does not take into account the health needs of the individual. It allows only six weeks' recovery time.
	In her final report on the case, for Mr. Ponsillo's appeal against dismissal, Dr. Guess, on behalf of the employer, said:
	Mr. Ponsillo tells me that at five weeks back to work he was still only doing half his hours. If he was suddenly asked to do full hours this would not be a usual step in a graded return to work and not what he had anticipated.
	We should bear in mind that he wants to go back to work. He is not a malingerer. Dr. Guess went on to say:
	Rehabilitation uses gradually increasing hours and tasks to rebuild confidence and work tolerance after a period of absence with ill health. It is important that the steps are graded and not too large as the latter is likely to set back progress. I suspect that he would also feel anxious and angry as he tells me he believes it was what was advised by Employee Health Services and his GP. It does not seem appropriate to use annual leave to facilitate his recovery and this suggestion is likely to make an employee feel resentful or angry.
	There is still a dispute about whether Mr. Ponsillo was expected to use annual leave to further his recovery. There is certainly a difference of opinion with the employer about what is normal practice in the Post Office. Dr. Guess made it clear that had he progressed through his rehabilitation as planned, he would now be working normally. She recommended that a report be obtained and that she saw him in the clinic, but that was not carried out.
	As the House can see, clarity is needed about rehabilitation and graded return to work. We need clear guidelines. Employers need to set review dates so that progress can be assessed, with an agreed plan for the future. It is important that medical views are taken into account. In the Post Office, where there is a clear hierarchy, if a manager tells an employee, You will do it this way, an employee is unlikely to argue back and challenge authority.
	It cannot be right that an employee is uncertain about the basis on which he or she should be working in a graded return to work. It cannot be right that a rehabilitation process is so inflexible that when there is a query as to whether an employee is fit to carry out full-time duties there is no medical follow-up, especially with a major employer. Such things are important at a time when the Government want an increase in the number of people returning to work after illness. We want people to work if they can, but it is counter-productive to fail to recognise their health needs and abilities. I hope this debate will provide the Minister with an opportunity to bring clarity to such situations.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), with whose agreement I am participating in the debate. It is unusual, but certainly not unfortunate, that there is agreement on an Adjournment debate across the Chamber.
	I am pleased to acknowledge my interest in the affair. The young man has been known to me for many years. His father has worked for me for many years. He is an outstanding employee and a man of great integrity. The family are exemplary in all respects, so it is strange that the situation that we are discussing tonight has come out of the blue.
	The case concerns a young man who has been dismissed after many years of effective service. He was described as one most speedy and effective sorters in the Post Office operation in Guildford, but he has been summarily dismissed. I shall discuss the circumstances of his dismissal, which I in no way seek to defend, in a moment, but I want to question the chain of events.
	The hon. Member for Guildford has provided an accurate chronology, so I have no need to repeat it, but I shall examine the principal events. The young man experienced a severe, embarrassing, debilitating male illness, so he was naturally no longer required to work. Logically and appropriately, he then agreed a programme to take him back to work with his GP, the Employee Health Service, which is a medical body that works for the Post Office, and Post Office management. Up to that point, no real problem had occurred.
	The EHS recommended that he be re-interviewed and reassessed on his return to work and that a realistic view be taken. However, he got a letter from his manager, which stated that he should return to full-time work and that he would be dismissed if he took one absence, rather than a normal, progressive continuation of the return to work procedure. First, the Post Office did not comply with the requirement that he must be interviewed again from a medical point of view. Secondly, at that point the young man's doctor said absolutely that the young man should not return to work and should not be further consulted and introduced to the stresses and strains involved.
	The letter from the manager, which came out of the blue, said that the young man should return to full-time work, that if he did not like it, he should sleep on the floor and that the so-called Newcastle procedure would be used. I have asked several people, including the young man concerned, Dominic, about the Newcastle procedure, and none of them had ever heard of it. In my industrial experience as an employerI make no secret of having always been on the management sideone never goes directly against doctors' orders. That is the one thing that one is not allowed to do. Nevertheless, the young man's manager did not care about doctors and said that the young man should return to work.
	At this point, the young man made a fatal error. He should have said, That is not right. I am entitled to a review under EHS procedures. You are going against what my doctor says. This is putting me in a totally impossible position. However, he tried to make a deal. Instead of saying, I am not fit enough to return to work, he said that he would give up some of his accrued holiday. Who has ever heard of somebody with a doctor's order saying that he should not return to work, who has the EHS saying that his position should be reviewed and who says that he will take accrued holiday to substitute for his absence? I do not like to say this, but that tells me that industrial relations within the Post Office are not what they should be.
	The Post Office has entered into a new arrangement, which I do not understand, with the young man, who thought that he was fine. I think that the decision to make a deal was a huge mistake, but it was not his fault. The situation is symptomatic of something being wrong with industrial relations, perhaps just in that depot or perhaps generally in the Post Office.
	The key thing that he had to avoid was another day's illnessthat has been denied neither by the management nor by him. So when, under these strange arrangements, he wanted some time off work, he phoned up to say, Look, I'm going to have tomorrow off. The man agreed. Then one of his managers suddenly said, No, I don't agree. The effect of thatI can see that I have the full agreement of the hon. Member for Guildfordwas that he was sacked. Then he lost his cool. He went into work thinking that he would be sacked and said things that none of us would seek to defend.
	No impartial person looking at that situation could understand how a procedure was gone through whereby this young man's doctors' orders were ignored, as were the recommendations of the Employee Health Service, which is the medical advisory authority to the Post Office. A completely unconventional and unsustainable arrangement was entered into by managers, who said afterwards that they had behaved entirely correctly. My right hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am pleased to see here today, has no operational responsibility for the Post Office, but all of us in this House have a deep moral responsibility for the way in which Government organisations, such as this one, conduct themselves on matters of working practices and human dignityeven basic human rights, which is what it comes down to at the end of the day.
	Perhaps the family feel that they will have to pursue the matter furtherI hope notbut the situation cannot be left as it is. A young man has been sacked, after many years of exemplary service, for an outburst that was provoked by the most atrocious, irresponsibleperhaps even illegalbehaviour. I put this question directly to my right hon. Friend: are managers in Government organisations allowed to override doctors' orders with impunity? If so, where is the redress? There is an inequality of treatment here that needs explanation and justification, and we look to her to put it right.

Jane Kennedy: As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, those of us who have had the privilege of serving as Ministers in Northern Ireland retain a deep and abiding affection for all affairs relating to the Province, so it was with a degree of disappointment that I missed some of the previous debate. I was attending the construction summit at the QE2 conference centre, where we debated issues to do with health and safety at workinterestingly, the subject of ill health received particular attention.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on securing this debate on a very important issue. I thank her for highlighting the experience of her constituent, and I appreciate that there is interest outside in what is being said here in the Chamber. Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specific case in questionthe hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) have given us some detail about the experience of the hon. Lady's constituentI welcome the opportunity to speak to the House about the wider implications for Government. If I take a broad approach to replying to the debate, perhaps I can say one or two things about the specific points that the hon. Lady raised, which might offer some reassurance to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West.
	I stress that the issue affects many Departments and I may not have all the answers today, although I have developed an acute interest in the subject through my work as Minister for Work. I will ensure that other colleagues, who may have a responsibility for some issues that the hon. Lady raised, take note of our deliberations.
	We are closer to full employment in Britain today than at any time for a generation, with 2 million more people in work now than in 1997. However, huge challenges remain. We cannot say that genuine full employment has been achieved when nearly one in every 13 of us is out of work and claiming an incapacity benefit. Many have been forced out of work by an illness or a medical condition, as the hon. Lady described. There are therefore 2.7 million people who might be said to be unable to work.
	The United Kingdom loses nearly 39 million working days every year. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that that costs the UK economy approximately 11 billion. Those absences are bad for workers, bad for business and bad for Britain. Managing absences from work due to ill health or disability is therefore critical and we take a keen interest in it. Learning from experience is an important part of Government policy.
	Long-term sickness absence is not inevitable. When employers work in partnership with their employees, aided by the right help and advice, sickness absence can and should be effectively managed. For people with many health conditions, effective and timely advice and support would help them manage their conditions before they became intractable. However, only 3 per cent. of companies have access to or use comprehensive occupational health, safety or return-to-work support. That is disappointing.
	There are examples of organisations' good practice in managing sickness absence and return to work.

Geoffrey Robinson: I take the point that my right hon. Friend will not enter into the particulars of the person who has been mentioned. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Guildford would join me in asking my right hon. Friend to undertake to draw to the attention of the Post Office chairmana man whom we all know personallywhat happened and ask him for his personal response. I know that the hon. Member for Guildford has tried to approach him and get a view from him, but she has not succeeded. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend cannot express a view but if she can ask the Post Office chairman to take a view and let us know it, we would be grateful.

Jane Kennedy: I am interested in that suggestion. I shall make a few comments about the Post Office and the experience that has been described. I shall not ignore itI can say one or two things about it. I shall also give some thought to my hon. Friend's comments.
	I wanted to give one or two examples of good practice simply to show that good work is being done. We want other employers, who perhaps do not use best practice, to learn from that. Rolls-Royce introduced a policy whereby any employee who is absent for more than four weeks receives attention. That includes physiotherapy for both work and non-work injuries. The policy has assisted many employees to stay in work or return to work more quickly. At the same time, Rolls-Royce has improved productivity.
	Unfortunately, that approach is far from universal, and a culture can exist whereby long-term sickness absence is accepted as a fact of life. When employers try to do something about it, they and their managers often lack even the necessary skills and support to act effectively.
	If people were provided with appropriate advice and support from their employer or GP at the outset of a spell of sickness, were equipped by the NHS to manage their health problem, and perhaps were pressed by the Department for Work and Pensions, for which I am privileged to work, to address other obstacles and helped to find work, I am sure that current employment and health outcomes could be massively improved. That process often starts with good advice on fitness for work and rehabilitation from the employee's doctortheir GPwhich might include the fact that the GP feels strongly that the individual needs more time for rehabilitation. The DWP supports hard-pressed doctors in what we acknowledge is a difficult role by providing guidance, support materials and accredited online training to assist them. We recognise, however, that more needs to be done to help doctors to advise their patients.
	It is also worth remembering that while sickness certificates record the GP's advice to patients about fitness for their usual job, it is the employer's responsibility to determine whether the employee is fit for work and in what capacity. The GP will know their patient well, but will not always be aware of the full details of the workplace situation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West and the hon. Member for Guildford have pressed me on how the apparent injustice that they describe can arise. The only circumstances in which employers are compelled to take account of the health condition of an individual are those resulting from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which affords protection against discrimination for people who are defined as disabled for the purposes of the Act. Under that Act, employers are legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments to aspects of work such as the working conditions or workplace, or to provide specially adapted equipment for people with a disability as covered by the Act. That might include a gradual return to work.

Sue Doughty: I appreciate that the Minister is covering the wider issues as well as the narrower points that the hon. Gentleman and I raised. In this case, however, in which the employee was outside the scope of the DDAhe was at work, he became ill and was still an employeethe occupational health officer was familiar with his case and had asked for, received and carefully read the information provided by his GP and the specialist who treated him, and yet the employer failed to discuss with her whether he was able to do the work that he was supposed to do and how many hours he should be doing it for. In his case, if he got tired, he would experience extreme pain that would cause him to roll on the floor holding himself. He certainly did not want to be put in that situation in the workplace, as it was embarrassing to him. All he wanted to do was get better and do a full day's work but be allowed the space to do it. It particularly concerns me that the employer could continue to ignore the opportunity to get my constituent fit and well and performing as well as he had done previously, as he had been a really good employee.

Jane Kennedy: Back-Bench Members of the House can sometimes comment much more freely about decisions in relation to individual cases. I do not have that freedom. I will, however, take up the point that has been made, particularly in relation to the apparent rigidity of the policies that the Post Office appears to have in place, with the chairman of the Post Office. I am happy to undertake to do that.

Geoffrey Robinson: We are grateful that the Minister has undertaken to do that, and that is the whole purpose of tonight's debate. Does she agree that it cannot be right that employers override doctors' instructions and views and force somebody back to work, whether indirectly, voluntarily, through some form of Spanish practice, or whatever? I was an employeryou will forgive me for saying this, Madam Deputy Speaker, coming from the west midlands, as I doand the one thing we never did was override doctors' advice. How can it be that some Newcastle agreement or other arrangement can entitle the Post Office, a national organisation, to do that with impunity? I am relieved that the Minister will take up the issue and seek an answer from the Post Office management.

Jane Kennedy: I want to make it absolutely clear that what I am about to say is not what I believe necessarily happened in this case. It may often be the case, however, that an employer has people with medical conditions working for him or her. People react differently to medical conditions: some people with common medical conditions can go on working, while others find themselves unable to do so. What I have learned while working on this is that there are times when we must challenge the clinicians who advise employees. Sometimes returning to work is a valid option when support is provided. When employer and employee work together with medical advisers, the best outcome will be achieved for the individual; it is when that partnership breaks down that things go wrong, and this seems to be an example of that.

Geoffrey Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jane Kennedy: I do not want to give way too many more times, but we have a little more time.

Geoffrey Robinson: My right hon. Friend puts it very precisely: that partnership has indeed broken down. There is no doubt about it. The medical evidence suggested that there should be a reviewwhich was refusedand that the employee was not ready to resume full-time work. That evidence was ignored; some Newcastle agreement was invoked, which was absurd, because no one knows anything about it. I have still not found what it is. The man was ordered to return to work full time, and told to sleep on the floor if he felt tired. The whole thing is ridiculous. Perhaps the plans we have for the Post Office will change the situation, but can my right hon. Friend not see that the arrangements did break down, and do need investigation and rectification?

Jane Kennedy: I am reluctant to go quite that far, but I will say this. We feel strongly that vocational rehabilitation has the potential to help us and other stakeholders to achieve our goals. The experience of the hon. Lady's constituent, as she has described it, is of interest to us, not least because that individual has maintained a positive attitude and a wish to return to work throughout his unhappy experience, but also because it involves what is almost a public sector organisation in which the Government have a clear interest. Following today's debateand having read the report of itI will contact the chairman of the Post Office, so that he can reassure himself that its policies are based on experience and best practice.

Sue Doughty: rose

Jane Kennedy: I will give way one last time to the hon. Lady, as this is her debate.

Sue Doughty: I am very grateful.
	I too have employed people who have returned to work gradually, and I know that these are delicate circumstances. On the one hand, an employer does not want to force someone to work; on the other, the employer has a budget and hopes that the employee will make a full recovery and return to work.
	There is, however, a wider issue, which is why I was keen to bring this matter to the House's attention. There are lessons for employers about getting people back to worknot necessarily those covered by the DDA, but others who have had a lengthy sickness. The main issue in this case is how much better it would have been had the manager concerned taken the advice of the organisation's own doctor, and asked for a review. The ongoing period of several weeks could then have been discussed. The case has a wider implication: I do not want other people in other organisations to be deterred, or to be treated in the way in which my constituent was treated.

Jane Kennedy: That experience and anecdotal evidence will help us in considering how to improve the support and advice given to people working with an individual who is experiencing a health problem, and who wants to retain their employment while doing so.
	There is some good evidence on restoring function and enabling a gradual return to work, especially for certain specific health conditions, but evidence on what is truly effective vocational rehabilitation is somewhat contradictory and inconclusive. We are seeking to redress that by collecting information that will give us a solid evidential base upon which to take forward further work. There is a change in attitude among not only employers but the medical practitioners interested in this field, and a willingness to engage in dialogue with the Government to try to improve the experience of those going through such difficulties. I am certainly enthusiastic about this development, and I know from my work as chairman of the taskforce dealing with these matters that there is interest in it across government.
	We will continue to look at various options, including how statutory sick pay impacts on people in such circumstances, in order to make these improvements. The Government are committed to making changes on a number of fronts to maximise the opportunity for people with disabilities and health conditions to stay in, or return to, work. But this is a shared agenda, and the support of employers and trade unions, as well as of individual workers themselves, is needed if we are to achieve the objective that all who participated in this useful debate share.
	I have given undertakings on the specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West, and I will look into the detail of the case described by the hon. Member for Guildford. I hope that our further work together on this issue will provide a little more clarity and, perhaps, encouragement to the family whose case she has described today.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Act 2005

ADJOURNMENT

Question, That this House do now adjourn, put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty two minutes past Five o'clock.